A significant part of the discussion focused on the proposal to require developers to account for a percentage of the canopy in new post-development, with different percentages depending on the tree size. This led to a debate on whether the current method disincentivizes preserving trees, and whether preserved trees should count as credits in the calculation. The committee considered the experiences of Seminole County and discussed hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the impact of different percentage calculations on the number of required replacement trees and the associated costs for developers.

The debate on tree preservation and replacement also touched on wetland buffer requirements, with some members questioning whether the city should regulate buffer requirements or defer to jurisdictional bodies such as the St. John’s River Water Management District. There was a call for more guidance from experts to address the challenges associated with street trees and landscaping in urban areas. Additionally, the committee debated the inclusion of buffer trees in replacement calculations and the implications of proposed changes in the methodology.

One member brought up a previous land development code from 2004, which required a certain number of trees per acre but capped the replacement at double that number. The discussion raised the question of the scientific basis for using inches as a metric for tree replacement and whether the current method of requiring replacement trees for every tree removed was equitable.

The committee also discussed pedestrian walkway requirements in urban areas. There was consensus to add language specifying that the crosswise walkway should have a minimum width of five feet. The building perimeter landscape area was another topic of debate, with some members questioning the requirement for landscaping in target areas and its potential impact on the urban form goals. The committee agreed to review the specific streetscape requirements in less urban target areas and consider updates to ensure alignment with proposed building perimeter landscape area requirements.

Further, the committee explored the idea of allowing applicants to seek relief from the city council if they find the tree replacement requirements excessive and proposed alternatives such as enhancing their own property for better tree canopy and survivability, instead of paying into the tree bank or planting trees on city property. The committee voiced concerns about overplanting and the importance of ensuring the survivability of planted trees.

The meeting ended with a decision to take a break and resume the discussion later, with future meetings scheduled to address development exactions and takings, as well as parking-related matters. The committee underscored the necessity for all members to be informed about the relevant information for the upcoming joint work session with the local planning agency.