AGENDA REQUEST. AGENDA ITEM NO: XIV.2. Neighborhood and Development Services Director Litchet. June 19, 2017

Transcription

1 AGENDA REQUEST AGENDA HEADING: New Business BY Neighborhood and Development Services Originating Department COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2017 Timothy Litchet Department Head AGENDA ITEM NO: XIV.2. Neighborhood and Development Services Director Litchet Presenter SUBJECT: Presentation and Discussion Re: Proposed Canopy Road Tree Ordinance. COMMISSION PRIORITIES: Quality of Life EXPLANATION: On July 5, 2016 staff brought forth numerous changes to the City Tree Protection Ordinance. One of the proposed 13 changes at that time was related to establishment of a canopy road tree program and staff was directed to work on a proposal and come back to the City Commission for further direction. Staff has developed a proposed draft ordinance and would now like to take it through the zoning text amendment process to further refine it with input from the Development Review Committee, the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board (PREP), the Planning Board and the public. Staff will also need to develop a fee resolution and amend the PREP Board s powers in the City Code so they could handle appeals. ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION: Motion to direct staff to file a zoning text amendment related to the establishment of a Canopy Road Tree Ordinance, along with other necessary changes such as establishment of a fee resolution and amending the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board s authority in the City Code. APPROVAL SUMMARY: Approval Department Head Approval Legal Review / Approval Deputy City Manager Approval City Manager Approval City Auditor and Clerk Approval Required Date Completed Y 05/18/2017 Y 05/18/2017 Y 05/26/2017 Y 05/26/2017 Y 05/30/2017 Completed By Timothy Litchet Robert Fournier Marlon Brown Marlon Brown Pamela Nadalini Status APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED

2 ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION: AGENDA REQUEST ADDITIONAL ADMIN RECOMMENDATION: FUNDING SOURCE: AMOUNT: HOUSING IMPACT (Per House): NEW CONSTRUCTION: REHABILITATION: SUPPORT DEPARTMENTS: $ 0 $ 0 City Auditor and Clerk - Pamela Nadalini City Manager - Thomas Barwin City Attorney - Robert Fournier COMMISSION ACTION: Final Action Motion: Motion By: AGENDA DISPOSITION Second By: Vote: 2

3 Page 1 of 24

4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF TREES IN CANOPY ROAD DESIGNATED AREAS; CREATING ARTICLE IV CANOPY ROADS; PROVIDING FINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING PROHIBITIONS; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING DESIGNATION CRITERIA; PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION FOR REMOVAL OR DISTURBANCE OF PROTECTED TREES; PROVIDING FOR TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR EMERGENCY TREE REMOVAL; PROVIDING FOR FEES; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS; PROVIDING FOR CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INTERPRETATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA: ARTICLE CANOPY ROADS Sec Finding of fact. The City Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. The City of Sarasota is endowed and forested by native and other non-native trees which give the City a unique visual character and enhance property values. B. Preservation and maintenance of healthy native and Florida Friendly tree species that comprise Canopy Roads will maintain their historic, aesthetic, cultural and environmental value. C. Preservation of these trees along roads is important for the following reasons. 1. To increase economic value of properties and neighborhoods, encouraging quality development. 2. To protect the environment of the City. 3. To aid in the reduction of air pollution by protecting the capacity of trees to produce oxygen and sequester carbon dioxide. Page 2 of 24

5 4. To help reduce potential damage from wind. 5. To provide shade and act as a noise barrier. 6. To assist in the absorption of rainwater into the ground, thereby protecting against potential damages from soil erosion and flooding, as well as reducing the cost of handling stromwater by artificial means. 7. To conserve, protect and enhance the aesthetic and scenic beauty of the City. Sec Statement of Purpose A. The purposes of this Article are to: Sec Definitions 1. Designate, preserve, promote and protect Canopy Roads in the City of Sarasota. 2. Provide definitions and regulations that will protect Canopy Roads in the City of Sarasota and encourage property owners to maintain these trees. A. As used in this Article, the following words shall have the meaning set out herein unless some other meaning is plainly intended. 1. Director. The Director of Neighborhood and Development Services of the City of Sarasota or his/her designated representative. 2. ASCA. American Society of Consulting Arborists. 3. Applicant. Any person or duly authorized representative who submits for canopy tree removal and protection permits. 4. Board. The of City Commission of the City of Sarasota. 5. Border Trees. A tree which has any part of its trunk (part defined as between 12" - 54" above ground surface), growing on the line established as the outer perimeter of the Canopy Road Zone. 6. Canopy Road Zone (CRZ). A designated section of City right-of-way and the adjacent private property extending 15' from edge of right-of-way onto adjacent private property. Page 3 of 24

6 7. Clear Zone. Canopy above travelway trimmed to 14 feet above road surface for vehicle clearance. Canopy above pedestrian zones trimmed to 8' above ground surface and 2' laterally from edge of sidewalk. 8. City. City of Sarasota, Florida. 9. Disturbance. Any action by a person which disturbs and causes irreparable harm to a protected tree. Actions which disturb a protected tree include, but are not limited to, damage inflicted upon the root system by heavy machinery, excessive trimming per ISA standards, changing the natural grade above the root system or around the trunk, damage inflicted on the tree permitting infection or pest infestation, application of herbicides or other chemical agents, infliction of a trunk wound, measured at its greatest dimension, that is 50% or greater of the diameter of the tree, or removal of sufficient canopy to cause unnatural decline of the tree. 10. (DBH) Diameter at Breast Height. The diameter of the trunk measured at breast height, which is fifty-four inches above the ground. 11. Drip line. An imaginary perpendicular line that extends downward from the outermost tips of the tree branches to the ground. 12. Emergency. Any man made or natural disaster, which is specifically declared to be an emergency by resolution, geographically defining the emergency area, and adopted by the City Commission. 13. Invasive Plant. Any non-indigenous plant that grows aggressively enough to crowd out native plants and habitats. 14. ISA. International Society of arboriculture. 15. Land Development Regulations. The Zoning Code of City of Sarasota, as amended. 16. Native Plant. An indigenous plant. 17. Naturalized Plant. A plant that is not native to an area but has colonized without being aggressive. 18. Person. Individuals, associations, firms, partnerships and bodies politic and corporate, and as the same relates to real property shall include both the record title owner of such real property, a tenant thereon or any person in possession of such real property. As the same relates to construction upon real property, the term "person" shall include Page 4 of 24

7 Sec Prohibition contractors, subcontractors, tree service contractors, utility companies, their agents and employees at a tree site. 19. Private Property. Any property not owned by the Government. Including all agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, office, professional, institutional, or recreational property in the City of Sarasota. 20. Protected Tree. Any self-supporting live woody plant of at least four and one half inches in diameter measured at DBH (which is approximately equivalent to a circumference of at least 14 ~inches), either a dicotyledon or monocotyledon of a species which has a main stem or cluster of main stems and commonly exceeding ten feet in height and having an average mature spread or crown of greater than 15 feet. 21. Pruning- Cutting any branch that is 4 Yi inches in diameter or greater. 22. Remove a tree. The relocation, removal, cutting down, poisoning, topping, lolly popping, damaging or any other action that causes irreparable injury to a protected tree. 23. Canopy Tree Removal and Protection Permit. The legal authorization to remove trees and/or the requirements to protect the trees from disturbance on a lot, pursuant to the provisions of this Article. Unless exempt under section 98-96, it shall constitute a violation of this Article for any person to remove a tree or trees or cause a tree or trees to be removed or to prune in a Canopy Road Zone, except in accordance with the Canopy Tree Removal and Protection Permit issued by the Director pursuant to the provisions of this Article. Sec Exemptions. This Article shall not apply to: A. A road or road segment not designated as a Canopy Road by the City of Sarasota and trees that are not in the Canopy Road Zone (CRZ). B. Governmental personnel or agencies or their approved contractors in the performance of their official duties during an emergency declared by the City Commission as provides herein. Page 5 of 24

8 C. Tree removal necessary for the construction of public roads, utilities, landfills, stormwater facilities, or other government uses only where no reasonable alternative exists to preserve the protected tree as determined by the Director. D. Pruning required to restore electric service during severe weather events or other electrical emergency situations. E. Persons engaged in routine arboricultural maintenance or clear zone pruning for vehicles, pedestrians, signs, or other roadside appurtenances provided that such maintenance and pruning conforms to current American National Standards Institute, (ANSI) A-300 standards and does not compromise the integrity of the canopy to shade the road. F. Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Punk or Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Australian Pines (Casuarina Spp.), Carrotwood (Cupasiopsis anacardioides), China-berry (Melia azedarach), Chinese Tallow (Sapium seviferum), or any tree species prohibited by Zoning Code Division VII-3.1. Sec Canopy Road Designation. A. The City of Sarasota Commission is authorized to designate roads as Canopy Roads and set standards for the implementation of this Article. Such standards shall be set by Resolution after an advertised community workshop (zoning code section IV-201(b)). Requests for additional Canopy Roads can be made by residents; Neighborhood Associations; City Staff; and the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board. Requests will be coordinated and brought to the City of Sarasota Commission by the Director for approval. B. Canopy Roads shall have appropriate advisory signage as determined by the Director defining the limits of the canopy road. Signage shall reference Ordinance No. (This Ordinance). Sec Criteria for removal or disturbance to protected trees in designated Canopy Road Zones. A. It is the intent of this provision that no permit shall be granted for the removal of any trees where the applicant has failed to design the proposed improvements to minimize the impacts on the Canopy Road Zone (CRZ). The Director shall issue a Canopy Tree Removal and Protection Permit allowing removal of a protected tree in the following circumstances: 1. A tree is in an advanced state of decline, as determined by a cityapproved certified arborist or state-registered landscape architect. Unless the tree is obviously dead or diseased, the City approved certified arborist Page 6 of 24

9 report must include a resistograph test or similar test which is approved by the City Arborist for use in determining if the tree is in such an advanced state of decline as to justify removal of said tree. 2. A tree is located where an infrastructure improvement or structure which complies with all applicable codes is to be located and the applicant has made all reasonable efforts to relocate the infrastructure improvement or structure to preserve the tree. 3. In order to preserve the tree, it would be necessary for at least 25 percent of the parking area or buildable area to be rendered unusable or unbuildable. 4. An imminent safety hazard exists which can be mitigated by removal of the tree. B. When authorization for protected tree removal or disturbance is required an application for a Canopy Tree Removal and Protection permit meeting the requirements of this Article shall be submitted for review by the Director. The Director shall issue a written authorization for removal, disturbance, or pruning of trees only when it is determined that the action proposed is necessary, and will not be contrary to this section. Any authorization for tree removal or disturbance shall specify the location approved, the species of tree, the action allowed to be performed, the duration of the approval, and any other requirement deemed necessary by the Director to regulate the disturbance or removal to Canopy Road trees in the City. C. Permitting Procedure. For the removal of trees in a CRZ, a Canopy Tree Removal and Protection Permit is required before any tree removal within the CRZ occurs. Where development requires approval under the Land Development Regulations, said Tree Removal and Protection Permit shall not be issued until after the preliminary subdivision plan or site and development plan or building permit is approved. Any person applying for a permit to remove or disturb trees, shall file a written application and pay such a fee as established by the City of Sarasota Commission pursuant to Section of this Article. The written application shall constitute a written authorization for City staff to enter the property to conduct inspections to determine if the applicant is in compliance with the provisions of this Article. A current tree location survey conducted within the last year for the lot and the first 20 feet of the adjacent lots must be submitted with the application. The tree location survey shall show the Page 7 of 24

10 information required in a scale sufficient to enable the determination of matters required under these regulations. 1. Requirements for Canopy Tree Removal and Protection Permits: a. Applicant shall submit a plan showing proposed scope of work to include protected trees (by species and DBH), the scaled location of the Canopy Road Zone, and the proposed location of the tree protection barricades. b. If encroachments into the CRZ are proposed, a plan will be required to be prepared by an ISA certified arborist or an ASCA certified consulting arborist specifying the methods to be utilized to preserve the vegetation. This plan shall address protection of the root system, crown, and stems of the trees, a means of supplying water and essential elements to the root system and the proposed location of the tree protection barricades. This plan shall be subject to approval by the Director. 2. Pre-application Inspection Service. The Director shall be available for preapplication conferences or inspections of the site involved. 3. Upon receipt of the complete application, the Director will conduct a field inspection to determine if the information is sufficient for review, and if the proposed plan is in compliance with the provisions of this Article. Upon completion of the review, the Director will notify the applicant that the application is either insufficient, does not comply with the provisions of this Article, or that the permit is approved, or approved with stipulations. 4. If a protected tree dies after a Canopy Tree Removal and protection permit has been issued and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or completion, the applicant shall notify the Director and request an inspection, prior to the removal of the dead tree. Failure to notify the Director prior to the removal of any CRZ protected tree constitutes a violation of this Article. 5. All permits will require a final inspection to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Article. Final inspection shall be scheduled by the applicant after completing the project. D. Trimming within CRZ shall be maintained to 14 feet clearance over the travelway for vehicles and 8' over walkways for pedestrian clearance unless exempt by Section E. Border Trees shall be included in the Canopy Road Zone. F. A Canopy Tree Removal and Protection permit is required to remove dead trees in the Canopy Road Zone, but there is no charge pursuant to Resolution No. Page 8 of 24

11 Sec Protection of Canopy Road Trees A. Location of Protected Trees. All protected trees which will be disturbed by proposed activities shall be physically located on-site and shown on the site plan submitted as part of the tree removal request in the Canopy Tree Removal and Protection permit application. B. Proper Tree Care: Canopy and Root Pruning. 1. When activities affect the protected tree so that more than 25% of the area within the drip line is disturbed, or when pruning must be performed on the crown of a protected tree, the following arboricultural techniques are required: a. When more than 25% of the area within the drip line will be disturbed, the affected roots must be severed by clean pruning cuts where the activity impacts the roots. Roots can be pruned by hand digging a trench and pruning roots with a chain saw, pruning saw or other equipment designed for tree pruning. Roots within the drip line must be pruned to a depth of twelve (12) inches below existing grade or to the depth of the disturbance if less than twelve (12) inches from the existing grade. When underground utilities are to be installed through the drip line, root pruning requirements may be waived if the lines are installed via tunneling or directional boring as opposed to trenching. b. All pruning of protected trees shall conform to the current ANSI A-300 standards and be supervised by an ISA certified arborist on-site. There shall be no flush cuts, stub cuts or lions tailing of the tree's crown. c. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance to perform the techniques of topping or other pruning as defined in Section C. Tree Protection Barrier Requirement and CRZ Protection shall be in accordance with zoning code section VII-312. D. The Director shall conduct periodic inspections of the site during the permitted activity in order to ensure compliance with this Article. Page 9 of 24

12 Sec Criteria and Requirement for Utility Company Pruning Electric utilities must conform to current ANSI A-300 standards when preforming line clearing work in CRZ to balance the requirement to preserve canopy and maintain safe, reliable electric service. 1. Utilities must notify the Director by or mail 3 business days prior to any maintenance utility line clearing work in canopy roads. 2. Utilities must have an ISA certified Arborist directing the pruning of trees in a canopy road on-site during any pruning. 3. Utility pruning should only provide minimum safe clearance to protect energized power lines with consideration for the combined movement of the conductors near trees in severe weather, the species of the tree, and the voltage of the conductor. Sec Emergency tree removal. When it is necessary to expedite the removal of damaged or destroyed protected trees in the interest of the public safety, health, and general welfare following high winds storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or other manmade or natural disasters, the City Commission of the City of Sarasota may, by resolution, suspend the requirements of this Article during the period of any declared emergency. Sec Fees Sec Appeals The City Commission is authorized to set reasonable fees and charges for the implementation of this Article. Such fees shall be set by resolution adopted at a public meeting. Fees and penalties collected shall be used to support canopy preservation efforts. The Director shall make all fmal determinations related to this Article, with the input from the City Senior Arborist. Any person aggrieved by the administration or interpretation of any of the terms or provisions of this Article by the Director may appeal to the Parks, Page 10 of 24

13 Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board which, after a quasi-judicial hearing, with notice to the aggrieved person, may reverse, affirm, or modify, in whole or in part, the order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have the powers of the Director or official from whom the appeal is taken. Any action pursuant to this section shall not stay any enforcement proceedings. An applicant for a canopy tree removal and protection permit or a permittee who has been issued a canopy tree removal and protection permit may appeal to the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board any decision of the Director pertaining to the denial, conditions of approval or any other decision of the Director interpreting or applying this Article. An appeal must be requested within (60) days of action, determination or notice from which the appeal is being taken. An appeal shall be deemed perfected when the applicant or permittee has submitted, in writing, a statement of the administrative action being appealed and the basis for such an appeal, and has delivered the same to the City Auditor and Clerk's Office, along with the required fee. Appeal of Decision. An appeal of a decision of the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board may be made to the City Commission. A notice of appeal in the form of a letter shall be filed with the City Auditor and Clerk's Office within (10) days of the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board decision, (which is not required to be in written form). The City Commission shall hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal and may affirm, affirm with conditions or reverse the decision of the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board. An appeal of a decision of the City Commission may be made to the County Circuit Court by filing a petition for writ of certiorari as provided under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. A decision of the City Commission shall be deemed to have been rendered on the date that the City Commission adopts a resolution setting forth its findings and decision. Sec Civil and administrative remedies. A. The City Commission of the City of Sarasota may have recourse to such remedies in law and equity as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Article, and any permit issued thereunder, including injunctive relief to enjoin and restrain any person from violating its Page 11 of 24

14 provisions and such damages as may be sustained by virtue of this Article, together with all costs and expenses involved in the case. B. Penalties for non-compliance with provisions of this Article shall be the same as found in zoning code section VII-325. (Note: add this to City Code Magistrate Jurisdiction). Sec Penalties Penalties shall be in accordance with City Code Section 1-11 as amended. Sec Severability. If any provision of this Article is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. Sec Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect upon PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SARASOTA COMMISSION, SARASOTA FLORIDA, THIS DAY OF Page 12 of 24

15 Page 13 of 24

16 Kim Denais.>: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Mark Miller; Jerry Fogle; Todd Kucharski; Ryan Chapdelain; Mike Connolly; Candie Pedersen; Nathan Jennifer Ahearn-Koch; Daniel Ohrenstein Timothy Litchet 12/13/16 Meeting Summary SKM_ ( O.pdf Sgt. Bruce King - Traffic unit, 4 people they won't be able to do stake out but could respond to emergencies - He has concerns with saying there can be NO 18 wheel trucks. He points out a truck with poles and with trusses that Jennifer gave to him. He also says other areas will want it if we implement in one area. Jennifer Ahearn-Koch - Says there could be exceptions. Tim and Mike C said no exceptions are really allowed to a traffic regulations. There was discussion of enforcement and also whether any other cities have special rules. Todd K. says he has not been able to find other areas with this regulation. The first meeting with neighborhoods included Tocobaga Bay and Witakers Landing and are private and part of Tahiti Park. Discussion related to Jerry's budget and requesting tree pruners to solve future issues. We discussed "grand Fathered' trees. We discussed whether the Sarasota County could be simplified. There was discussion that we should use our existing -lefinitions when possible and also whether this should be a zoning code or city code provision. Action items for the next meeting include: Responsible Party: Tim 1. Post the Tahiti Park advisory signs Mike C. 2. Research the legality of posting roads or adopting an ordinance that would allow for limits of lower height than 13 feet 6 inches - ie: the state fire code standard (see attached from Tom Hicks, Fire Dept). Tim 3. Ask Tom Hicks height of tallest fire apparatus (Tim sent 12/14). Full Committee Tim -;indi/jerry 4. Send out the Sarasota County Canopy ordinance, suggestions by Todd K, and suggestions by Nathan. Everyone needs to be prepared to discuss issues and modifications at next meeting. 5. Tim needs to meet with City Attorney prior to next meeting to discuss minor legal issues (Kim DeNais has been instructed 12/15 to set up meeting. 6. Candi and Jerry will discuss budget and personnel needs re lated to canopy pruning issues and will be prepared by February meeting to have enough detail that the committee can weigh in on preliminary city budget discussions. 1 Page 14 of 24

17 If anyone sees anything I missed, please let me know. Happy Holidays everyone. See you next year!! Tim Kim L. DeNais Administrative Assistant City of Sarasota 1565 ist Street Sarasota, Florida FAX Kim.denais@sarasotagov.com 2 Page 15 of 24

18 CANOPY TREE MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2017 Present: Mr. & Mrs. Nathan Wilson, Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Mike Connolly, Todd Kucharski, Jerry Fogle, Tim Litchet, Candi Petersen, Mark Miller Discussion by Nathan Wilson related to newly discovered Uniform Fire Code Section that reflects there may be some flexibility in the 13 ft. 6 in. clearance provision. Discussion ensued with Parks and Recreation staff as to the best method to deal with nonconforming streets. Mrs. Wilson said there should be policies that deal with emergency tree removal vs. scheduled tree removal. Mike Connolly said that his legal recommendation would be to follow the 13 ft. 6 in. minimum. The committee determined this is a policy issue and will be ultimately determined by the City Commission. Discussion that on designated canopy roads the Parks and Recreation Department may be allowed to have more flexibility as a.q.q.lify, ie: there could be warning signs and reflectors. This policy would be applied to municipal trimming. Mrs. Wilson asked if this provision could be written to cover both and then let the City Commission make a determination. It was also discussed that we could just go the administrative route and then add more rules later. We will recommend to the City Commission to just do this as a policy with the Parks and Recreation staff and we will mention this during any City Commission report. Jerry summarized work being done on the RFP for the City wide tree inventory. Action Items Candi will draft a draft policy related to how her employees would trim low hanging limbs in a designated canopy tree zone and will share it at one of the next meetings. Next meeting, Jerry and Candi will bring forward their recommendation on their staffing and contracting needs so this group can support his request. Tim will get a draft ordinance together that combines all comments from each that he has received from Todd, Nathan and the City Attorney. Page 16 of 24

19 CANOPY TREE MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Present: Nathan Wilson, Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Mike Connolly, Todd Kucharski, Jerry Fogle, Tim Litchet, Candi Petersen, Mark Miller, Daniel Ohrenstein Tim brought up the Arbor Day Foundation program. Nathan Wilson said the trees may be too small and might not survive. Jennifer Ahearn-Koch said do an event for tree planting and lower income areas may benefit. Nathan Wilson says there has to be automatic watering systems and we should be able to invest in it through our mitigation programs. Candie Petersen talked about tree trimming procedures that her staff would utilize. Nathan Wilson does not like this trimming procedure/policy and feels there must be a way to grandfather certain trees and limbs. Mike Connolly said that safety trumps all and that he must insist any adopted regulations or policies consider that. Mark Miller said that he just had a call from a citizen in the County related to hitting a limb in a canopy subdivision in the County and it caused $5, to the rental truck. Jennifer Ahearn-Koch felt fire trucks can go around low limbs and says that truck size should be limited on roads with grandfathered limbs. Tim Litchet said the committee should deal with the trimming issue next meeting after we had a chance to review the from Candie Petersen. Candi says they are really using this policy to respond to specific complaints and we need the tree inventory to determine how big the problem is. She said her staff will be dealing with the real problem limbs first. Jennifer Ahearn-Koch asked how County deals with this and Tim said County legally has in their ordinance to trim all tree limbs to a certain minimum height. Candi Petersen says let's meet in the field and look at some of these specific issues. She says we need this to respond to complaints and specific issues until when we get a better tree inventory. 1 Page 17 of 24

20 Tim Litchet said the committee needs to go forwar_d with the process of a canopy ordinance as grandfathered trees are just a subset of what we are working on. Jennifer Ahearn-Koch asked about working with CCNA to establish tree or beautification on committees. Todd Kucharski felt it was a good idea and said trees need attention and love and education will help our citizens. The committee started reviewing the ordinance, draft #2. Daniel Ohrenstein wanted to discuss the need for a ROW permit as well as a canopy road permit and Tim said that the intent would be to have one joint permit covering both. The Committee decided to add a definition of pruning - any branch over 4 Yi diameter. The committee got through Section Action Items for the next meeting Tim will send out Arbor Day information. Tim will add a definition of "pruning" to the 3rd ordinance draft as well as a couple of other minor changes. The committee members will be ready to review the rest of the draft ordinance. 2 Page 18 of 24

21 CANOPY TREE MEETING MINUTES MARCH 28, 2017 Present: Nathan Wilson, Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Mike Connolly, Todd Kucharski, Jerry Fogle, Tim Litchet, Candi Petersen, Mark Miller, Daniel Ohrenstein Nathan Wilson started the meeting by stating that the Rosemary District citizens have been complaining that they don't have enough places for mitigation trees. Tim Litchet explained there are quite a few utility conflicts and zoning allows zero lot line development. Staff announced the Community Canopy Pilot Program in association with the Arbor Day Foundation being implemented by Stevie Freeman-Montes. $5, from the tree mitigation fund will seed the program. Tim Litchet talked about meeting in the field related to some of the specific canopy tree trimming issues. He brought up a specific issue on Caloosa that he and Candi Peterson recently handled and they were able to save the tree, but it highlighted the safety issues these trees can present. The committee went thru draft #3 section by section related to changes. Jennifer Ahearn-Koch asked if the road canopy signs could be more aesthetic than the ones in her neighborhood. Dan Ohrenstein said that all depends upon the street designation. There was specific discussion about 98-98(c) and it was determined to be 14 feet clearance. Action for next meeting: 1. Tim Litchet will prepare a final draft ordinance. 2. Tim Litchet will set meeting with Nathan Wilson to review the new GIS tree mitigation registration system. Page 19 of 24

22 CANOPY TREE MEETING MINUTES APRIL 27, 2017 Present: Nathan Wilson, Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Mike Connolly, Todd Kucharski, Jerry Fogle, Tim Litchet, Candi Petersen, Mark Miller The group was lead thru the final revision Draft #4 by Tim Litchet and verified the changes he had made as a result of the last meeting. There was discussion about how GIS systems could help with the overall tree protection effort and Tim Litchet said there would be a demonstration of GIS capabilities at the June 5th City Commission meeting. There was discussion as to whether to place this canopy tree protection division in the City or Zoning code and the consensus was to place it in the Zoning code. There was also discussion that ultimately the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board would need to have its powers amended in the City Code to accommodate handling canopy tree appeals. There was also discussion related to how tree removal fees in canopy tree zones should be utilized to strengthen this proposed program and agreement that should ultimately be reflected in the fee resolution. Tim Litchet stated his goal would be to bring forward this draft proposal at the June 19th City Commission meeting and ask for authority to process a formal zoning text amendment to take this through the public hearing process. He would keep the required fee resolution and City code changes to the PREP Board on a parallel track. Page 20 of 24

23 Page 21 of 24

24 Book 64 07/05/16 Page :30 P.M. than four stories In height; all as more particularly set fo herein, etc. (Title Only) (Site Plan Application No. 16-SP-03 and Rezone Appll n No. 16-RE-01, Applicant Donald A. Neu, AICP, Neu Consulting, LLC, as gent representing Oaktree Development of Sarasota, LLC, as contract vend of the subject real property) (Agenda Item IV-B-4) 5) Adoption Re: Second reading of propos rdinance No , to conditionally vacate that approximately 120-foot Ion /- foot wide platted alley known as Cherry Lane located along the sout rn boundary of certain real property with a street address of 1938 Laurel Str and located at the northern terminus of that certain platted Lafayette Court, as more particularly described herein; providing for severability of the part hereof, etc. (Title Only)(Appllcation No. 16-SV-01, Applicant Donald A. Neu, P, Neu Consulting, LLC, as agent representing Oaktree Development of Saras, LLC, as contract vandee of the subject real property) (Agenda Item IV-B-5) City Auditor and Clerk N allnl read proposed Resolution Nos. 16R-2578, 16R-2584, and proposed Ordinance Nos. 16-5, , and by titles only. A motion was de by Commissioner Atwell, seconded by Commissioner Chapman to approve Consent Age a No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through UNFINISHED BUSINESS (AGENDA ITEM VI) 1) ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO , AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (2002 EDITION) OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF A DISEASED TREE; ARTICLE VI, ZONE DISTRICTS, DIVISION 1, BY INCREASING THE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF TREES REQUIRED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT; AND ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, DIVISION 3.1, TREE PROTECTION, BY MODIFYING EXISTING REGULATIONS AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL OF TREES AND GRAND TREES AND MITIGATION TREES, BY ADDING TO THE LIST OF EXEMPT TREES AND BY MODIFYING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE REPLACEMENT TREE FUND; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF, ETC. (TITLE ONL Y)(APPLICATION NO. 16- ZTA-01, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) (AGENDA ITEM Vl-1) AND 2) ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO , AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE V, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES, DIVISION 5, CODE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM, SECTION 2-321, SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES, BY ADDING THERETO A PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO POST A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION BARRIERS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF, ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (AGENDA ITEM Vl-2) Director Timothy Litchet, Neighborhood and Development Services (NOS) Department, came before the Commission and stated that at the June 6, 2016, Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting, a public hearing was held to pass proposed Ordinance No on first reading with recommended changes and to pass proposed Ordinance No on first reading; that Staff has made the requested changes and recommends the Commission pass proposed Ordinance No on second reading with the following changes to the Zoning Code: Page 22 of 24

25 1} Section Vll-328.adding penalties for poisoning a tree. 2) Section Vll-329 related to canopy streets was removed from the proposed Ordinance and will be brought back at a later date. 3} Section Vll-318(2) related to listing Mango Trees as an exempt tree was removed from the proposed Ordinance. 4) Section Vll-3200) revised to require a Mitigation Tree be planted if a protected tree is removed because of potential loss of insurance. 5) Section Vll-320(k) was revised to require a Mitigation Tree be planted if a protected tree is removed because of dose proximity to a main structure or garage. 6) Section Vll-102(u) (5) was modified to utilize the tenn "caliper" instead of "diameter" when measuring the required Mitigation Tree. Mr. Litchet continued and referred to proposed draft Ordinance No displayed on the Chamber monitors, and stated that no changes will be made with the exception of reflecting June 6, 2016, as the first reading date and updating current members and titles and the Commission; however, a scrivener's error was discovered on Friday, July 1, 2016, in the existing Zoning Code; that the cross-reference section is incorrect and will be corrected; that Staff recommends the Commission adopt proposed Ordinance on second reading as written and with the noted correction. In response to a request from Vice Mayor Freeland Eddie asking for clarification regarding Mitigation Tree Fees, Mr. Litchet stated that the first requirement would be to replant the Mitigation Tree; and if not feasible and/or not possible, the Mitigation Tree Fees would be applicable; however, the goal would be to have the replacement tree mitigated on-site. Discussion ensued about the concern of the Mitigation Tree Fees possibly being a double-edged sword, Statrs original proposal was the trees would have to be mitigated if removed due to the proximity to a home, which is the direction Staff previously received from the Commission, however, and the hope is to make the requirement as broad as possible. In response to a question from Commissioner Alpert asking if Staff was directed by the Commission to take out language related to diseased trees, Mr. Litchet referred to notes he took at the June 6, 2016, Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting, and stated that the topic of diseased trees was discussed, specifically the definition; that Staff was proposing to make a change; however, the Mayor noted Commission consensus to leave the definition as is. The following people spoke: Pamela Mones, resident of the Rosemary District and Member of a Grassroots effort within the Rosemary District which is trying to become active and involved with all the exciting things happening in the area, indicating the hope is for the City to save the two large Banyan Trees located on Cocoanut Avenue and Fourth Street which are enormous and beautiful trees which provide a rich canopy. Nathan Wilson, displayed on the Chamber monitors a diagram outlining the average canopies of Live Oak and Sabal Palm Trees, and read a prepared speech indicating the Commission is thanked for continuing to work on protecting trees and the quality of life. Kathy Kelley-Ohlrich, Chair of the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA), indicating the CCNA has worked tirelessly and devotedly with City Staff to refine the proposed Ordinance, what is being proposed is the result of the essence of the people, by the people, and for the people, which is exactly what should be the norm. Mr. Litchet stated that he is familiar with the site on Cocoanut Avenue and Fourth Street with the two Banyan Trees; that the belief is the Tree Removal Permits have already been issued; that the two trees are exotics and are located in an area where the City is supposed to be building to Book 64 07/05/16 Page :30 P.M. Page 23 of 24

26 Book64 07/05/16 Page :30 P.M. celebrate the corners; that the trees take up much of the area; that although the two trees are large, they are not in good shape; however, mitigation will be required. In response to a question from Mayor Shaw asking if the trees were diseased, Mr. Litchet stated that a response is unknown based on the City's definition in the Ordinance. City Auditor and Clerk Nadalini read proposed Ordinance No by title only. A motion was made by Commissioner Chapman, seconded by Commissioner Atwell, and carried by a 5-0 vote to adopt proposed Ordinance No on second reading with revised language as recommended. City Auditor and Clerk Nadalini read proposed Ordinance No by title only. A motion was made by Commissioner Chapman, seconded by Vice Mayor Freeland Eddie, and carried by a 5-0 vote to adopt proposed Ordinance No on second reading. 3) DISCUSSION RE: RE EST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION REGARDING THE EXTENT OF THE :TATE PRE-EMPTION CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUN ION (AGENDA ITEM Vl-3) City Attorney Fournier stated that t the June 20, 2016, Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting, the Commission directed th City Attorney to place an item on the Agenda of the July 5, 2016, Regular Sarasota City Commis ion Meeting to discuss the question of whether to seek an opinion from the Florida Attorney Gene I (AG) as to the extent of the State preemption of fireanns and ammunition in Section , Flori a Statutes; that a majority of the City Commissioners must vote to authorize the request to the Fl rida AG as the requested opinion would pertain to the "powers and duties" of the City Com ission; that the question is whether or not the City Commission has the "power" or authority o adopt a measure such as proposed Resolution No. 16R-2582; that the answer to the question would depend on the interpretation of the Statute and the extent of the pre-emption contained in t Statute; that Commission discussion and direction is sought. City Attorney Fournier continued that the A Office now requires counsel for the legal entity requesting the opinion submit a full memoran m of law on the subject which would attempt to support the result desired; however, all the vario s aspects of the question must be discussed; that two major areas to be discussed would be: 1) th First Amendment issue and 2) application of the rules of statutory interpretation courts are sup ed to apply in interpreting a Statute; that the recommendation is to avoid making the First Ame ment issue the primary issue as the AG could refuse to provide an opinion if necessary to dete ine the constitutionality of the Statute; that a natural inclination could be not to wish to address constitutionality and address on some other ground; that concerning the Rules of Construction, the Statute is unusual due to the penalty provisions; that typically the remedy would be decl atory injunctive relief if a city adopted an Ordinance which violated a preemption with an inj ction to stop the local government from proceeding with the regulation or enforcing it; howeve Section , Florida Statutes, has an enhanced penalty provision as any elected or appointed fficial who is in some way responsible for violating the preemption is be subject to a civil penalt in the amount of $5,000, which is not discretionary, must pay their own attorneys' fees, and is tentially subject to removal from office by the Governor. City Attorney Fournier stated further that the Statute was assed in 1987 without the penalty provisions; that between 1987 and 2011, violations of the eemption occurred by certain local governments which kept trying to regulate the area; that in re ction, the Statute was amended in 2011 to add penalties based on a history of violations; that an rly version of the draft 2011 Bill called for a civil penalty of up to $5 million for violating the St te; that someone clearly did not want local governments regulating firearms; that another versi had a penalty of no less than Page 24 of 24