e e e e e e e e e e okay so we'll also run through the um consultant as well just so that you know maybe they can give us they'll probably give us the same advice okay but we'll want to check with them so that they can give us some later later in the section it actually talks about small medium trees can be measured by caliper or by 45 gallon so there's a so you're talking if you're talking large trees that's different yeah if you're talking large trees by caliper but small medium it does provide for either caliper or by 45 gallon uh well it it's later in the session I'll find it just the specific we'll go through it as well okay can you read that one so we also have a comment from Dave Axel on this one so uh take it away when you're ready Dave but the prop the comment says Property Owners should not be required to plant Street trees in existing public rights away only new streets so so what section are we in right now just so I know where we are uh this was just a this one didn't have a citation so I just put it can we get to Street trees okay Co okay so on page two we have a comment is that page two okay so we have do we want to add a section for parking lot standards which include enhanced parking landscape requirements um and that is something that we as staff want to add so we added a comment underneath that U for Kim horn to add those parking lot standards so is this kind of a consolidation because now you've got parking lot Landscaping standards in the parking code are you trying to move it all to one place we would like to move everything into one place okay we would like to put all the trees anything related to trees into one article good good idea okay so the next comment comes on page four under um purpose and intent Part B now if you all have any um comments that you'd like to ask or questions that youd like to ask please just ask them as we go okay and I didn't get consensus do you all agree that we should have parking lot standards for landscaping moving them over yeah into there yep one spot yes you're the consensus finder well if there is no objection then automatically it's a consensus so we have you have a consensus okay thank you okay so page four under purpose and intent um there's a there's language um that we added there's language we deleted so it says um B one the regulations are intended to lessen the transmission of noise dust and glare and then we deleted between lots and to protect the water air and other natural resources of the city um we also added language unto um where it says developments shall be designed to reduce water consumption and then we deleted water consumption shall be reduced by we trying to simplify the language um utilizing one or more of the following um we deleted in that under two c the use of perious Paving materials so we deleted that is that because it's in the wrong place and that would be elsewhere is is that why because this is about trees yeah it it is about trees and it is in the wrong wrong place is there a consensus to to do what we okay so will we talk about perious materials in the parking section so we had a conversation about perious paving materials and I cannot remember what the conversation was if there was any such thing that would um we're trying to conserve water so we weren't sure if perious paving materials would allow um anyone to conserve water because this is this is that section it's about conserving water so the perious parking is about the flow of water yeah um so is will that be in park in the parking section yeah there will be another section that we'll talk about that the type of materials we just thought thought that this was not appropriate yeah okay okay page four articles as well exemption exemption see yeah so we deleted um the zoning districts and replaced it with single family residential lots instead um and that is in C2 uh we deleted the you'll see the different zoning districts rce R1 AAA r1a um so forth it says shall be exempt from all um buffer yard requirements other than the front yard requirements for special corridors as shown in table 12.2 we don't have buffer requirements for single family residential so we just remove the zoning districts because they didn't include all of them anyway um and then we just put in the actual use single family residential lots is there a consensus for that yes there is yes okay no objection okay page five under D were there any comments from Dave um no not yet okay so page five um um D so trees planted under power lines they increase the height um to 30 feet so um we wanted to include language to require utility companies to place their lines underground in the downtown and targeted areas that was one um and we wanted them to reduce that height from 30 to 20 feet and these are trees planted under power lines and then in e um the Florida friendly list resource is being referred to inconsistently sometimes it's program and sometimes it's plant guide so we want them to be consistent with how they're naming the Florida friendly Landscaping program is there a consensus for that yes no objection we felt 30 ft was too high for trees under a power line agreed yeah and then the way they cut them it's it's ridiculous when you see them under the power line we we can't make them put them underground can we we can make it what we can't make them put them underground can we we want to include language so we're going to see if we can make them do it so so we dealt with this if you recall on chelonian inside a project yeah a new project it's easy to tell people they're underground we had no way in the combination of dot RightWay and with Duke Energy to force underground we tried but they wouldn't do it and then they want all kinds of money and getting that Monopoly to behave not very easy it's not always Duke but it's mostly Duke I didn't think so I just kind of confirming that we really can't and and I feel you each year the Florida legislature rolls back what we can do anyway but I I didn't think we could already well I I'm not other jurisdictions do require undergrounding even even on the uh in the right way um there are some considerations particularly as Dave mentioned that the utility companies won't underground transmission lines but they will underground distribution lines the other part of it is that undergrounding can become cost prohibitive um especially uh depending on the types of a everything that's in the air has to go on the ground basically so that not not just the the lines but also the Transformers the switch gears whatever the case may be and um typically when you have an undergrounding plan it's typically the best way to do it is do an area plan because you're doing one area at the same time what happens when you're doing a block is sometimes that infrastructure can go and move and then when this last person goes to underground then all that infrastructure has to be put underground becomes very cost prohibitive for that individual so if we were going to require undergrounding we'd have to carefully think about uh what the hardships are for the developers and might in my opinion because it could make it so that development is cost prohibitive if we had that as a provision well so so also remember we're trying to have this fight between trees and utilities and it gets a little crowded down there so so uh you know it was a real Challenge on 434 so if you've been out there there's new poles and do didn't like where the new Duke poles were so we had to change Where the Sidewalk was and the new polls are coming out and they're putting new new poles in so it's it's quite the circus sometimes uh you know if you seen them they're in front of the sidewalk next to the street and do cried foul and said you can't put those right next to the travel Lane so everything's moved around again so quite quite the the trouble yeah will get expensive just because the rideways underground like you said they are crowded so it it's a balancing act yeah but it's if it's not under theground then you're also subject to hurricanes and stuff right of course so it's it's really finding the right balance because it's well I'm just saying in new development it makes absolute perfect sense um and sometimes you've got a new Street so if you look on Broadway it gets a little confusing because the power is undergrounded some places and it's going to go in fits in spurts it's it's really bewildering sometimes it is and right now with the whing some of those utilities had to go 15 feet deep to be able to fit so just it doesn't look like it's gone underground along Broadway but it technically has has so a part of what you see is just service to those buildings that are going to go away it's kind of weird and that was that was uh your fund moving the City Utilities right Gloria all right so based on this we will keep the language as presented okay thank you okay so page five one TR Cali yeah so um be large trees we added some language um just some clarification language um under B where it says a buffer yard trees and Landscape Island Trees um but we also deleted trunk calber says a new large tree must have a minimum trunk calber measurement of 2 and2 in measured at 6 in above grade at at the time of tree installation but we deleted that and moved it down to see below and you'll see it when we get there um we just placed it in a different section so you'll see it okay okay so page six number two minimum lot tree requirements we deleted um large trees the title which is large trees planting SL preservation and called it U minimum lot tree requirements because that's basically what the table is it's the minimum lotry requirement um and then we deleted uh the unnecessary language so it says trees referred to in table 12.1 shall be large trees unless otherwise specified new and preserved trees count towards the minimum lot tree requirement as specified in the following table so we deleted the rest of that because it's we felt that it was unnecessary which says planting Andor preservation large trees shall be required for all principal land uses according to the following table so it's just unnecessary we're trying to eliminate any unnecessary language is there a consensus for that okay okay so table 12.1 was there a question I'm sorry okay there we go I've got a question but I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to ask it so just tell me uh I'm curious to know whether there's any requirements for distances of trees from water and sewer lines not from water and sewer lines there is is there one in the engineering standers manual I want to say it was 5T I remember looking at the other day for the dwell but is it in the engineering standards manual or normally use uh industry practices um I would check the engineering standards manual I can't hear but I know we at least like them 5 feet away from the trees the reason I ask that is that we do have neighborhoods that have trees planted directly on top of water and sewer lines and the roots are getting into those lines and the sewage is backing up into the homes so if we don't have standards that deal with that kind of thing we probably should think about it well if the practice is that maybe we can just memorialize it in the plan development code so so the challenge I see is typically you got to put your utilities near a lot line and if you look at most housing projects these days the lot trees can't be in the Middle where the driveway is and have to get near the edge too so I think and and Gloria kind of talk to this it's how deep are you but sewer like you're talking about from the home is usually gravity and close to the surface and more susceptible so we have kind of this Catch 22 and I deal with it on every project I work on that's got residential is this battle between utilities and trees is kind of challenging absolutely really really difficult oh there yeah there's no question I mean we contended with that um also there's an issue of the kind of trees that are planted in proximity to those particular utility lines um there's some trees that have the roots that go down as you know and others have the roots that go out and that also um is an issue particularly in a neighborhood where you've got trees that are very close to driveways or even very close to the street uh on the on the house side uh with the roots disrupting the pavement or disrupting the pavers or doing whatever uh so I think we should think seriously about having some degree of control over that uh don we do have in this version of land of code update in the street tree section uh it's an item that reads Street trees that are planted closer than 5 feet to a Street sidewalk or Street curb and utility line shall be planted with a root barrier and so that's the that's the code provision that we have in here currently let me let me put this in the context of my own neighborhood street trees are what we call the trees on the west side of evening Sky Drive the trees that are directly in front of the Town Homes between the building and the street are considered homeside trees not Street trees so if we're requiring barriers for Street trees why are we not doing that for the trees that are actually closest to the homes in the utility lines you mean the trees that are on the lot yeah do yeah and the location of the trees and the service that's being provided to the home yep uh and I'm I'm trust me I am all for the trees I don't like the fact that we now have taken out so many of them but they were doing so much damage we didn't have an alternative right and I think to prevent that kind of damage in the future we seriously ought to look at at somehow regulating the proximity to utility lines and um the the type of trees we put in in proximity to driveways and streets right well so on the street tree provision that's something within the city's domain with the lot trees it's a little bit more murky in the sense that for instance if it was a single family residence I know you're talking about town home but if it's a single family residence that's getting built by building permit and so there's a stub out where the utility line is and then it being drawn to the house is something that's done after the fact am I correct about that and so that's not something that um you know how would if we were going to regulate that how would that that would happen at the building perent stage I'm just I'm trying to think about the administration of what you have private property because we do not require permit for people planting trees right so a town home Community would have um a plan for the whole Community but single family for instance we do not control I don't know that we even control what happens when there is a planned unit development for Town Homes because in our neighborhood there were no trees on the home side of the street in the original plan there yet they were planted and the city approved them well it's we don't approve we don't approve planting trees you cannot remove trees without our permit but if you want to plant trees you don't require permit from the city so we have not approved people planting trees and that's you allow things to be done that are not in the plan that you've approved for vegetation yeah for landscape yes because it's it's um it's your property so if you're not um you can plant trees there is no restriction to planting trees there there are restrictions for removing trees well and yeah and we dealt with that and that worked out but the reality is that by allowing that stuff to be planted where it was the City by not having any regulations or enforcing them the city has cost homeowners thousands of dollars to either repair the damage or remove the trees and I just don't think that's something that homeowners should be in the position of having to deal with so basically are you asking the city to come up with regulations for I think we should regulate the proximity of trees and the type of trees in relation to driveways and water and sewer lines so so if I could ask a question of Gloria that goes along with what you're saying so I think I asked this the last meeting you guys are working on updating your engineering standards manual so trees are a problem depending on the depth and type and style of utilities so like probably a dual iron pipe very deep it's not going to probably do a thing to it right but a a PVC sewer line that's gravitating near the surface so what I'm suggesting is that utilities that that they pay attention to this and where on a project if you're going to do a utility easement that the criteria about what can and can't be that utility easement would emanate from public works on an ad hoc basis otherwise we're going to prohibit trees everywhere I think so I I think this takes a little finesse so one of the things that we have suggested and I think it got to the code is um the true the Tre tree barriers but not only the tree barriers but doing tree wells in the RightWay to push the roots down I think we're also asking kimly horn to provide a tree list that would be better instead of for the RightWay specifically uh so the roots go down and not out so we're looking into a combination of things in the case of homeowners so when we look at plans they only gave us the the sewer and water up to the property line um we normally don't see the line from that portion where the city uh responsibility ends into the house uh and that will be a developer driven thing because basically we normally put water and sewer separately or normally at the edges of the lot so they don't mix so how they bring it into the house that's another issue more for the architectural of the home how they bring that sewer line in so we normally typically don't see that line so when they put the trees they should be the responsibility of the developer to not put it on top of the lines and I understand that that seems to not be happening um it's not happening that's for sure um our development was built by a combination of Engel and lenar and Engel as you know was bankrupt and we had to Sue lenar and the lawsuit went on for six years before we finally got a million dollar settlement to deal with construction of the home issues um we haven't even sued them over the over the tree problems but that's not unique to them and I'm sure that's not the only place that's happening well I think this is a good example where some regulation should be in place to prevent such situation again but if the city's not reviewing it I don't know how yes so that is the thing that's I was trying to explain we review plans right we review subdivision plans we we we uh um review town home it would be they would have um the side plan for the town home but if a homeowner after buying the home plants a tree that is not we do not have a requirement from that so it's I think it's more of an educational thing so homeowner associations can do that you know be aware of the type of tree you're putting where you're planting trees CU there we do not require permits for people planting trees cuz this is should be a good thing so we cannot review those we can the ones that the standards that we review yes we can tie them to you know have utility easements to ask for um um distances and for the types of trees because that's the other thing that is very important our code has to go to one layer you know above what is right now to see what types of trees work next to infrastructure understood and I think this is uh good and probably one consideration might be residents should not or cannot plant trees in easement areas such as utility easement if they don't put it in the easement then that should be okay is on their property away from the easement then probably that should eliminate that so the Catch 22 here I think they're saying is the city can't regulate what it never reviews so someone wants to plan trees on their residential lot they don't get a permit so they also it's not a city easement because Gloria I think to the point of the meter the point of connection it's a city facility then it's private so now the city is saying you you're suggesting and I understand the problem let's have the city regulate what they don't review I don't know how they do it no we not saying that da because we're saying they should not plant in the easement the easement is not theirs right that's another educational thing that we can do it's not something we can regulate so we can educate right let's just use the process of Education to educate residents not to plant in the easement but it's okay to plant on their property anywhere they want therefore there's really no regulation it's that just educational aspect okay anyone agree with that sure all right if you say so I'm asking a question okay so I had the street tree comment and we just passed that spot oh the one from the top correct sure uh so let me go back to that 123b comment no I I can say what it is okay so so 123b the new language at the bottom uh no no 123 B is you you you were there right there yeah okay so so basically I'll just suggest this we already discussed sometimes you have challenges of where to plant the trees can you plant them in the street maybe maybe not depending on utilities can you plant them on the lot maybe you shouldn't because folks need to be educated not to put them on top of their utility lines so to me it doesn't make a difference to the resident or the person driving down the street is the tree a few feet this way or a few feet that way you want the maximum number of trees so I think this last sentence Street trees should not count toward the minimum requirement is a mistake but there's two things that go along with this and on a couple of projects I've done you've got Street tree requirements and lot tree requirements and the streets often have right parallel to the edge drain lines water lines sewer lines so it's really kind of two things um I think where there's conflicts with utilities Street trees should be allowed to be planted on the lot approximate to the street and the street trees should count towards the lottery requirement otherwise you end up planting more trees on the lot than fit so it's a matter of positioning try to put the lot tree approximate to the street keeping this five foot spacing or 10 foot spacing or whatever it is and that's really what I was saying so I'm suggesting two things here now Street trees are regulated somewhere else I think right so only part one would work here and I'm suggesting that we change that from uh Street trees shall not count towards the minimum requirements to adjacent Street trees Street trees shall count so it's Crystal Clear that's my suggest I think they they should only count if they are put on the lot size lot side right we have we have that before that if you cannot plant on the street because of Any restriction that's not that's not what I'm suggesting I know but because the issue is that the streets um end up being controlled by Public Works if something happens that Public Works has to you know remove the tree or the tree dies whatever because after it's dedicated then it's the responsibility if it's a public Street it's a we we control the street so that creates an issue of controlling the you know the compliance with the lot um I think Street trees that are not planted on the lot should not count as as so I I disagree and let's say there's some Nuance to this so the bulk of new development in the city is not going to be single family I think we can recognize so it gets a little stickier when you have number of trees per lot and all these separate Lots but when you're talking about per acre I absolutely believe the street Tre trees should count toward the requirement because you're trying to create a coverage of trees and having a complete class of trees that people are planting that don't count to me makes no sense whatsoever so that that's I'm I'm not really going to alter my suggestion there I I hear what you're saying what was the reason to move the street trees onto the lot what was your reason utility conflicts where we did that but what I'm saying medium that's that's the second element of what I said the first one was Street chees trees should count toward the number per acre require can I go back to the first point so one of the things that we did in the new code for Street trees because we know sometimes large trees cannot fit um in the in that that area for Street trees so we have allowed now instead of large trees we've allowed for medium trees to go into that area and we're going to go over that and number three and that's coming up so it's not just large trees anymore we do allow for medium trees as well to satisfy um the street tree requirement because we didn't we had never opened it up for medium trees before it's always been large speaking to that so proximate to the street is almost invariably the sidewalk a large tree grows grows taller and has a canopy and doesn't block a sidewalk a medium Tree Grows lower and spreads and blocks the sidewalk so it's not always a good solution so I I'm just making a suggestion if the committee likes my suggestion it does if it doesn't it doesn't before we go that far I just want to remind everybody that in the target areas we have new streetscape requirements which require a Furnishing Zone which would be the location where a tree would go and so in those are in the target areas which is where the most of the development is being you know kind of funneled to uh that would not be an issue Asos so that would be true for New Roads but not existing ones in a lot of cases we would also ask the consultant we've we're also asking the consultant to determine what type of trees are the best trees to go along the rideway as rideway trees um we don't want something that's going to pull up sidewalks that's going to um damage the infrastructure that's there um so we we also believe there was an issue with large trees so this is our way of correcting um the RightWay trees is to allow medium trees um they have to have root barriers on them what happens if Street trees do count toward the minimum requirement and a storm comes through and knocks them down and now that lot is below the minimum must that tree be replaced so that's the issue that's that's why I was Raising that issue because now we are talking about two different jurisdictions right the public and the private um so if if the tree if the street tree is placed on the side of the private property and we have allowed that because they are closed to the sidewalk for some reason you can put in the street because of the of the utility then they would count because they they are there you know but if they are on the other side then it it it's get difficult then for compliance for the future whatever to to see the you know the history so that's why we do not want to count Street trees as as minimum my suggestion to that is you have a site plan approval and this is a little different from what Theresa's saying but I've had circumstances where there's a slight change of use or an interrupted use and the city looks at the original site plan and says you're not compliant because of whatever reason and sometimes it's landscape and I'm not familiar with with the exact circumstances but I think this happened along the the no longer wind Dixie right when the restaurant was approved LongHorn they were deficient on their landscape were they not I believe so yes okay so so if there's a site plan and the site plan has you planting a tree no matter where it is and you go to do some other procedure you can be code enforced you're not compliant I well usually we only to your your question we we only um are aware of those things if a Redevelopment comes right because sometimes we do not we cannot control all the s plans and all the approved side plans in the city right but um if if a tree is removed and it was a minimum requirement they should that tree should be plant planted back and and the ones that we are aware we could enforce I I still have my request I think I think before the board makes um a decision on on what Mr AEL Axel is requesting we're going to do an exercise and the exercise is going to show what the consultant is proposing today in terms of um buffer trees um lot trees um did we include RightWay trees we're going to do that so there're doing an exercise there's a part three to my comments and so what happens is we've noticed that when development comes we've gotten all the complaints that they've come in and clearcut all the trees trees and then they replace them with these little tiny trees um so we wanted to show you guys an exercise of what it looks like um today what's required today and then what's going to be required when a new development comes on board with the new standards and the trees that's um that can be clear-cut and nothing happens they're not required to replace so we want to do that exercise with you all before we make a decision on what Mr Axel is requesting so should we address Dave's comment I think we should that exercise yes well but but I have another issue so so I I just want to raise them all okay okay so you talk about the the downtown core area as an example so in a downtown and lots of folks have been to and and a more urban city the reality is almost all the trees of any importance are Street trees that that's just a fact sorry can you repeat that almost all the trees of any importance are going to be Street trees so you're going to structured parking you're you're working on in on new streets this streetscape you're talking about the Furnishing zones where the trees are those are the important trees yet they don't count and and that doesn't to me make sense now the other thing I was going to reference and it was one of my comments we were coming up on is table 121 and and I can give you the example of where this situation occurred some years ago so in the presently in what's what's it called now the village core that that was O on the park was Village core okay in the village core you have Center Lake Park and Center Lake Park as that developer agreement was negotiated was the Park area you have a parallel on the downtown core with Solari Park so here you have zero open space requirement everywhere else in the city it's either 25 or 30 right so in a 25 or 30% open space requirement placing depending on what type of use you have 15 10 to 15 trees per acre might make some sense trying to fit 10 to 15 trees per acre in a downtown core where you're trying to create buildings right up to the street you have very little room for trees and you're not going to count Street trees number one the the amount per acre for the use is too high number two not counting Street trees is is counterproductive because that's the important trees I think that's a good point because we have to balance things out because there's no room to plant trees well that's why we have the tree bank right so the idea is that development we know and we are going to show you the numbers development destroy trees we know that right and dest sty in the hundreds so the idea of the replacement and the tree bank is that the city then would get you know if you cannot plant the minimum required in your in your site then you pay into the tree bank and the city will would plant elsewhere and it's never the same amount so there is always a cap to protect wooded areas so we want don't want to penalize if you if you have a little Forest and if you're developing and you can develop develop that's you have property rights we allow you to develop you're going to clear the site you're going to remove 400 trees and you have per our calculation you have to have a cap of I don't know 100 57 whatever we can show you in the exercise there is a cap which is the twice the number of the of the um what is what is required the table uh 12.1 that's the next AR that we'll talk that's the next article so the idea is that then you pay you know into the tree bank and the city plans and balances out that's that's the idea so so just hear what was just said you can't count the tree you plant in the street but if you pay money to the city they can plant with that money the tree in the street it makes no sense to me I I just don't understand now and and Theresa and I will debate this to the the end of time and I'll just say it now even though we're not at preservation who owns the tree on the lock getting developed the property owner owns the tree so the presumptions being made and I understand the politics of it people don't like see trees cut down but they're not your trees they're not the Public's trees the public didn't pay for them the public didn't plant them the public doesn't pay taxes on them they're private trees so to the extent when we get there if 10 trees per acre is good enough for the public on a piece of land that had none then 10 trees breaker should be good enough for the public on a property that had lots of trees and people don't like it but but it's kind of well it's the environment it's all all we know about the environment right it's so that has you're we are now working in in an assumption that we work in an environment that everything is linked right and and trees are an important piece in the environment so it's not something that the city of aido has created it's something that all the cities have and it's to balance out because we know and it's a given and we accept that that the development you know destroys trees we know that I'll wait till we get to the next article to get deeper into this I think part of uh you know two things 121 is very important because the whole conversation has started looking at the table to understand the differences because obviously something that's built right to the edge can't have the same design design you know and a number of trees and how they're placed as I'm going to say Live Oak Reserve but I'm also going to then say live o reserve do designed terribly with Street trees and so is Kingsbridge and so is name me one development that we had that's under this rules that has Street trees that have not been a nightmare to the city in terms of sidewalks underlying you know uh utilities etc etc then we either have to change our own rules to say well unless there is eight feet wide and those trees are spaced this far apart not going well you have to put a 100 trees in there that's a ridiculous thing to goes well just by a account you have to put 100 trees in I lived on a corner I lived on a culde not a CLD on a corner you know and a baseball you know shaped lot there was a tree there a tree here on my lot and a tree right next door to me and it's like if David was here and many times when David our former arborus was here he'd sit there and tell us yeah they're going to die yeah they're going to die we're forcing plants and we're forcing these trees in there to die because there's a requirement to put in Street trees that yeah they're going to be a problem to the city as we see all the yellow paint that's out there now especially and they're going to die so I don't think you it's a one way we're looking at one way and saying there's requirements but I think the requirements have to be there only if yeah there's 4 feet or six feet between I don't know what the number is to sit there and say so the requirement is 50 feet apart for trees but but I'm saying it doesn't happen because I can go to live o nerve and go how many just walk down live o reserve and tell me those are 50 ft apart cuz they're not so but there was a choice then for the development or the lens keep architect because the requirement is one tree every 50t that's the requirement right but I'm going to say then well that that becomes then his question of well we're just sticking in on the city then later on somehow so I I think we're like combining these arguments together or discussions that go it's poor design and this is kind of leading to there's there's we have to have these minimums I'm not going to I won't argue about the minimums that's okay with me and it's well we have to have these minimums no matter really what the topography how it's set up we don't we say they have to be 50 feet we're not saying they have to be 50 feet apart we're saying the minimum is we we just count how many 50 feet apart would be that's not requiring or they have to be 50 feet apart that's just saying for the count we use 50 feet as the number to give us a total if you aquirium to be 50 feet apart then I can say in that curve I lived on there'd be one tree between three houses that's kind of where I'm saying the problem lies is we're making requirements and then not having the requirements on the back end to make it right and we know this is wrong every time there there's not AR look at OVO Boulevard's wrong we have oo Boulevard peeling up all over the place and that's well we we are trying now to say because I think here everybody goes for the live vote Oaks like you know the Laurel Oaks and I think that's also the type of trees that people are planting so we are trying to guide but it's not a manner of trying we have to like again it goes back to Don's kind of then how do we make it versus trying because trying they're going to say we're going to put in the Live Oaks what because that's what people want to buy we're going to put in X because that's what people want to buy every landscaper listen how many homes are built and you're looking at the plants that are installed at the beginning because that's what people want to see in the beginning and then they go oh long term those are the completely wrong plant to have in these yards because they grow the viburnum shouldn't be sitting out in front of a household in front of a you know front window because they're just going to grow this those kind of things so I'm saying there's there's a balance or these have to work together and with Don's part of the discussion versus just being like there's this part they have to be there's a minimum 5050 that's a here's the part here then there's we don't we're going to tell them they shouldn't do that and use these other kind of trees that's nice we got to tell them this and we're going to tell them that or the bottom line is like you said well they can pay into the tree Bank it just kind of to me is is a well yeah they could always pay in the tree bank or they're going to plant whatever tree they want because it's their property yeah and maybe I did not um um the the tree Bank works for replacement trees right but you we still have minimum lot trees you know Island Trees Street trees B trees that are required you can deviate if there is any issue but that's all I'm talking about is the placement of these trees I I don't I'm not even just got like could we could have more trees I don't even care like that's to me is it's not the amount that I'm have like that I have a it's the Don's you know discussion and like I said that we see all the time how we allow the trees to be put in we're requiring these trees and then just saying well it's a they can design it any they want and you know the Glorious you know Department well we're going to be stuck with the the results of those whatever happens and the results of live o Cambridge B you know cutting them uh you trimming them cutting them fixing the cworks with them etc etc that becomes the city's problem so why wouldn't we want to say no you're not putting like not a matter of we'd like you to no you're not putting those trees they they have to be 50 feet apart or they have to be and those whatever it is has to be there has to be at least a 8ot or six foot section so that the roots will not invade into whatever and I I sat through that discussion with the boxes and the root boxes and again that was a whole another nightmare of discussion of root boxes and things we can do and this and that that contradicted what the guy two weeks before I think said entirely it was like okay this isn't fixed science even to say well here's how it works so so I think both Harris and Gloria referenced it yeah so just for everyone else Stephen was there for some of the discussion which was at CRA and what I'm getting at to some extent with the street trees is and to to Stephen's Point direct the effort and spend the money and do it in an appropriate way where it has survivability so he's referencing width so what do you need you need a volume of soil for a healthy tree to survive to maturity or it won't happen it'll break the sidewalk the tree will die the tree will atrophy so what we're talking about and they're expensive I think the number was what $700 a tree or something like that it's called a soil cell and it's a plastic structure that can support pavement that has loose soil in it that you could run utilities through that the roots can grow and there's loose soil in and basically without having this necessarily 8ot wide area you can get enough volume of soil for the right kind of trees then he's talking to tree types so in those particular designs also on Broadway on Geneva Drive although that Landscaping is not going in yet it's a certain kind of Oak they it's a variety of Live Oak called either Sky climber or something of that nature where they grow vertically and not spread because you're putting them right next to buildings so what I'm getting at with these comments is we want an urban Forest where we're doing Urban stuff and you want to put them where they survive and they all count so if if the developer can plant these trees with soil cells in the street and you plan this new street where the utilities aren't a conflict that should be encouraged not discouraged and and so to me you look at these requir holistically and you say the whole area deserves good survivable streetscapes and when we get to the next article and Teresa and I always debate this and we will again uh you know I don't like the idea of punishing people because they happen to have trees it's it it just rubs me the wrong way everyone else might like it I know everyone yells and screams when trees are cut down um the city at some points in the past would say save this tree saved that tree well when the rest of them are gone you have this stick that's going to die in five years it ends up being ugly it's now the Wawa but it used to be the Texico there were three sticks that slowly died over there it was kind of funny big tall trees with no branches uh someone's nodding his head over there knows what I'm talking about uh there were some in front of the KFC Taco Bell that died slow agonizing deaths so I'm just saying to Steven's Point Let's look at this holistically I think Deborah is saying please don't please don't change things now I to give you just wait until you see the whole picture so let me just go to U number three we're going to go back up to the table let me just go to number three so number three talks about the distance between um the large trees for Street trees so if we need to if the um ldcc want to change this language and make recommendations for it let's do it now so it says for every 50 linear feet of right of away adjacent to a parcel a minimum of one large tree shall be provided by the development order application within the RightWay unless prohibited by The jurisdictional Authority or in locations where the presence of underground or overhead Public Utilities makes installation of such trees impracticable then medium trees must be planted as Street trees so let's um focus on this language because I heard the placement of um um these Street trees as well as the tree types and then U where utilities are in are not in conflict is where they should be planted so do we need to change this language I think this to include the oh go ahead I think this helps as long as it is included in the requirements of Street trees yes this is for Street trees this is Street trees so we just da was point just a little bit ago it said it does not so he was saying no they don't count lotteries that's that's something different we let's make a distinction and I made it the the table has two things going on there's lot trees and there's trees per acre of a project and I think the trees per acre of a project the street trees are completely different circumstance in my opinion so to Steven's Point you have a new Street in a sub division you measure the length of the street you count one tree per 50 foot of linear right away well now you have everyone has a driveway it might be 16 feet wide by the time you have one per 50 you're grouping three per per 40 or something well we just count the driveway in the in the calculation driveways every single driveway or Street intersections they are they are discounted I I've not seen that every driveway is excluded in the calculations only the inter sections I don't think so yeah I have to go look at a plan set I'm not going to do that right now and that this is this is again I don't have a real problem with that that it does what it's supposed to do but then okay how do we protect the city when that it says you know when if such trees are impractical so can they plant a large tree if they want it has to be a large tree if it's not practicable then they plant a medium tree right well again if it's and that means if it has presence of underground or overhead topic that make the insulation impractical right but like I said so that worked Live Oak in Kingsbridge and every other development that we have but yet we're picking up the tab to fix every sidewalk every road everything that happens from the head point so what why are we still saying that's let's go to 3A so if you go down if you scroll down this talks about um under the new a so maybe we can talk about the types of trees so this one is trees shall have Hy drought tolerance according to the latest edition Florida friendly so maybe we can put something in there that it can't have roots that extend you know we can ask the consultant about that so I 40% 40% the width of the sidewalker again I you're getting into such so we can highlight that to add language so so unless the consultant is working with an arborist or landscape architect landscape a landscape AR but back to my past point and I've run into this issue where we're doing a development agreement we can do the old trade let's do two medium trees for a large or whatever it is okay but you run in this situation where medium trees block sidewalks Medi medium trees block driveways because their growth habit is is they spread they don't get tall depending on the medium side so that's the thing I think we have to have in the code what kind of large trees do we want and what kind of medium trees do we want because we know there's issues with oak trees a lot of the subdivisions have the oak trees and the oak trees The Roots grow and it tears up the sidewalks and we know that so do have a schedule where you're trying to do adoption we're on this section today but what I hear you saying is let's defer till we get more input on on this draft from the consultant who last did something in September October last year it's a little hard to swallow so well they know they know already about that because we already had meetings with them to and the landscape architect is coming at so if this comes back and we get to see it again then then I'll say I'll I'll defer my suggestions so why don't we defer this discussion and the previous one that we just deferred Le wo to the Landscaping plan that you're going to present to us and tackle it all together in one discussion okay but we want to raise those as concerns so I want to put that in the notes that um the tree types and making sure that it doesn't conflict so it was my my concerns were Street trees counting decreasing the quantity required in in the what do we call them target areas what what are they called uh Target okay target areas and dealing with the the placement of trees because one thing I mentioned but we didn't really discuss was the capability of putting Street trees approximate to the street on the lot so I I honestly think except for these more intense areas that that's a better solution than medium trees is if you have a a tree proximate to the street that's not in the street which was the solution in a lot of times on chelonia but we had a developers agreement so it was different well and the code allows that too for relocation of Street trees to the to the uh property where is that in here does that exist now let let me see if if and we don't have to find it now I'm just saying that was a concern to address when they come back so we can move on I was not paying attention I was talking to Sam so I don't know what we're looking for I'm sorry whether Street trees are allowed to be on the lot or count if they're included on the lot as opposed to be right away it's not in there today so what I would say is is there's two developers agreements where we did that that you can kind of craft the language from chelonian and Evans Square both did that we have allowed because if we allow them not to be there because the code already if there is utility conflict with utilities you know the code allows us to not have the trees there so we have negotiated in the past to have the trees so to everyone's understanding just so you you know what's going on here the utility is in the way you can't plant the tree but you must pay ation even though you can't plant the tree yeah and it just rubs people the wrong way I'm just telling you part part of the reason this happens the both developments that you talking about are are densely populated single family or town home developments and so the issue is that the proximity of driveways cuts out your ability being able to put lot trees on the street or Street trees in that's correct area so one solution could be but I don't know if there's any stomach for is we just we don't we only have front uh front facing town homes and have an Alleyway to access the the um the garage or uh we we can look at how to better accommodate Street trees in those locations because otherwise we're going to keep on running to the chelonian incident or we could just bake it in the so it is in the code F if prohibited B The jurisdictional Authority or in locations where the presence of underground of overhead public ities makes the installation of Street trees impracticable set trees shall be inst installed on site or the applicant shall pay a fee into the city street bank so we have done that in the past okay then it's it's covered yeah so all right okay thank you all right is there a consensus to have this addressed with the plan that the staff will bring yeah and I would like to make part of that a discussion of proximity to Water and Sewer lines of tre okay any question okay so let's go to table 12.1 so that's table 12.1 so we deleted the title I should just Dave does have a comment although I think it was somewhat addressed we we talked about it yeah a bit in the what should the quantity be in the downtown court now I never finished telling everybody the example and and I will now and part of it was was which often happens you struggle with getting your engineering plan done and the guy waited till the end to do landscape so the the the Panera was in an area with 0% open space requirement but OVO on the park didn't have a different requirement for the number of trees per acre yet Mitchell hammock at the time had a 30 foot buffer requirement I think on on the main road and so it kind of and it looks a little funny to this day but they put all the required trees almost all the require trees in front of the building to the point where the police were upset because there was no sight distance for entering and and leaving Vehicles so it created a absolutely absurd situation and the city ended up going and moving trees off the site onto public property so I think to Steven's Point let's not require what's impractical and doesn't make sense and that was something that probably could have been addressed if they hired the landscape architect at the front and there was time to talk to staff but it there that wasn't you know I knew it was coming but I didn't really have control of those people uh but the the result was kind of humorous when you saw it will take him this plan will address that correct I hope okay I'm going to go on to TW table 12.1 please go ahead okay so table 12.1 so we deleted the title um to and it now says minimum lotteries and one of the things that we did was we combined single family lots from 5,000 square feet to above one acre and actually what it ended up doing is reducing the number of trees per lot uh we do get a lot of complaints about the number of trees per lot um for single family a lot of times they want to remove it or if they want to add a pool or any kind of accessory structure and they don't have the minimum um lot trees then we require that they meet the minimum lot trees um and a lot of times they've planted other trees so they have a lot of trees on their properties but not all of them comply with our code which would be large trees so we have now um you'll see single family at the top single family residential detach um two family residential includes duplex greater than 5,000 square feet it's six trees per acre with a minimum of two trees so when you look at that table if you go down just go back up just so that they can see the single family so you don't start having three trees until you reach 21,780 Square fet so if you look at that's going to be the 15,000 to what I can't even see the number 43 you're looking at this one yes so 435 so at 435 you're going to need six trees five trees well today you're going to need five trees but um with the new policy you'll need six at 36,300 you will need um 5 trees at 29,40 sare FT you need four trees and then at 21,780 is Three Trees so you'll see 15,000 to what number is that is that 43 43 yeah you need five on the existing but the proposed you're going to need less you'll need no more than um three three or four depending on the the square footage but you will not it won't get to five until you get to 36,300 square ft so everything else less than that requires um requires under 21,780 ft requires two trees if that makes sense so this is reducing the number of it's reducing the number set for 43560 any comments on that a palm tree it's a waste of time it's like why do we why do we count a palm tree as a as a tree it's not a tree it's a big blade of grass it's totally useless it doesn't in any it doesn't help Florida in any way like we the whole of this is balanced on well we want good plants that are good that help a palm tree is nothing I understand that we agree to this which is reducing the number of trees I know but it says or one palm tree and one meeting tree that's the that's the single that is that is already for town homes that is already lot are so small the lots are are are really small that's for Less that's a 5,000 lot size this would be for Milton Square so it's still a landscape you know element but it's not it looks like it's all combined it still shouldn't count but okay I will say even native palm trees have benefits I have Pals in my I a consensus on what's presented there is consensus okay for single family yes yeah so we didn't make any changes to the if you scroll down there were no changes to multif family or non-residential understood okay so we talked about the street trees already we included the medium trees so in page seven um a where it says trees shall be yeah so we Al we they keep referring to the Florida friendly plant list so we want them to use the correct reference um because they are calling it different names and then um C where it says Street tree shall be preferably shall preferably be located between the roadway and The Pedestrian sidewalk or a bicycle path and shall be no closer to the roadway than Allowed by adopted safety St standards that comment is um we'll need to revisit the requirement given the damage large streets caused to the sidewalk and roadway pavement um a root barrier is probably not adequate to prevent damage either large trees should not be allowed in this area or structural soil tree grates should be required to promote deeper root growth which which comment is that this one is Paul urat so so one point to this little section of code and this is something to think about going forward so I believe the the code as it exists is written to enhance the environment for cars and if you look at this section of code it's basically saying put the sidewalk um next to the road which basically makes the environment for people inferior because you're concerned about trees and cars and I get Paul's comment and almost every engineer would tell you trees and cars don't mix but the reality is the presence of trees approximate to the edge of the street makes people psychologically drive slower so I think it's a good thing a tree between you and a car if you're a pedestrian and fur the road is prob good so as we're moving toward Urban form that little sentence right there so what what I'm not getting what is the sentence that that kind of um drives the sidewalk to be next to the street located between the roadway and The Pedestrian sidewalk and Paul's saying the opposite okay but then you have this conflict of no closer to the roadway than it adopted safety standards so it's this this built-in conflict so if what Paul's saying true is don't put the tree there and you're pushing the tree to the other side and then you take what Stephen was saying or if you want enough room for a soil cell uh then you're flipping this in practicality you're pushing the sidewalk toward the street in in effect even though this says the opposite the second part of the sentence is in conflict with the first and Paul's comment kind of reverses the whole thing so I'm just is saying be conscious when we move forward what are we trying to uh provide we're trying to provide one solution in this language for two different kinds of areas so we're talking about doing an urban streetscape with a Furnishing Zone which puts the trees next to the road okay yet we have this other comment saying move them away so which one is it I'm just saying I don't think the comment refers to switching the sidewalk and the tree itself but putting the trees behind the sidewalk not not necessarily saying that you need to flip them but put to put them on the back side of the sidewalk or have to I don't think we like the root barriers itself because the root barrier is just in that section of pipe so we want it to be a tree well if you're putting the tree there it has to be with a tree well so really a soil cell is the right term but I hear what you're saying I'm I'm just saying let's be conscious of if you're moving the tree to the back of the sidewalk and it needs enough room the sidewalk has to move closer to the street given a fixed geometry so I'm just saying the reality of what goes on here might be in some zoning districts counterproductive that's all I think what we need is to have the protection of the of the roots but they should be in between ideally they should be in between the sidewalk and the street if we are if we are valuing The Pedestrian is to give a more right and in some circumstances look at Paul's comment he's saying you've got conflicting safety standards which are written for the benefit of cars and so you have to start looking at which road is which what's what's a high-speed Road where this is a serious problem that's going to happen and it's going to kill I'm not reading the safety con I'm reading the damage com comment it's the damage of the sidewalk he he talks he's talking about damaging of sidewalk but it's also the safety the distance he's talking about line of sight no safe distance it doesn't say can you can you read the comment cuz I'm I'm not seen that but I can read it it says we need to revisit this requirement given the damage large trees caused to the sidewalk and roadway pavement a root barrier is probably not adequate to prevent damage either large trees should not be allowed in this area and or structural soil tree grates uh which he refers to as tree boxes uh should be required to promote deeper root growth yeah so it did not raise any safe to concern only the the sidewalk so the issue is that do we want the trees you know to provide shade to the sidewalk in Florida if we want to stimulate people to walk that is the challenge right we do how to do that what kind of trees we need to to to regulate right and what is the how how they should be planted you know to be safe I'm reading the totality so the highlighted stuff now which is different than Paul's comment the second part of that shall be no closer to the roadway than adopted safety standards Gloria do you know what that is what what is that distance that and it's a do standard I think don't put the tree within X feet of the street so I'm just saying let's be conscious of that because I think the esm calls engineering Cent have some it depends on the speed the road so I'm saying let's be conscious of that because we're saying let's put it between here and that section right there says don't put it there if it doesn't meet a standard at some point something has to get one of the standards has to give that that's all I'm saying so if we have this uh landscape specialist that's going to come talk to us put that on the list what is that safe distance and it's you you use fdot standards right Gloria FDO standards have not quite caught up to Urban form I'll just tell you okay just go ahead and put it in that section okay and then in D it says we added utility lines it says Street trees that are planted closer than 5T to a Street sidewalk or Street curve and utility lines um shall be planted with the root barrier so we added utility lines into this one so is it a root barrier or the the soil what what is the the most effective that's two different purposes the soil cell is to give room for the root growth the the root barriers to keep it from impacting something Beyond it right Gloria so a soil cell won't really tell the root not to go anywhere else well the idea of the root barrier is to push the roots down so they don't grow in the UP UP side So like um the the idea is like it pushes the root down like you know uh Franklin Street the tree Wells those tree Wells have concrete walls that go down so the trees rout go down instead of Superfluous and lifting the sidewalks and they don't go down sorry the the tree tree roots don't go down eventually if they have a wall or something like that then they'll just encircle themselves and it eventually chokes a tree out anyways as well but doesn't it depend on the type of tree there are trees that are more more um vertical generally a plant is meant to go as wide as it's they are more superficial but but it will hit a barrier and it will then start to Circle and the capillaries of the of the tree roots will bind it and kill itself choke itself out eventually probably not it might not be in our lifetimes but well the other thing with root barriers which is I think a bad solution is as a tree matures and gets larger think now what keeps it stabilized in a storm is this spread out root system which is going to be missing almost on side and you're going to see a lot more trees toppling over which is a catastrophic failure so I I think the the root barrier solves the Public Works immediate concern that you're not screwing up my stuff but eventually that tree as he says and I didn't understand about the capillaries the tree is going to be at risk but it's also to to guide the the route to go to a certain height and then it can spread right we not cuz the root barrier doesn't go it's not a tunnel that goes super deep right it's just to guide it to not to affect the sidewalk but the compaction of the road the the tree route doesn't want to go there you know when you look at how how they you know the amount of base and the what's the you know you got to get your Geotech out and you're compressing this thing to rock so I think we need to have the landscape architect coming I'm going to tell you I come from a very large I come from a very large city with a huge mature you know canopy of trees so it it can it can happen we need Brazilian trees I know I'm telling you and we have we have the forest there's ways to do it right but we have forests and forests so yeah there is a way too so let's let's talk to the L from Public Works perspective the trees are a problem with the sidewalks and the utilities uh we would prefer them behind behind the sidewalk like Sanctuary has them we don't see as much trouble with those sidewalks but we understand the need for trees is it tree boxes again now we're across like seven different we're saying three because I see that um Paul says tree boxes is that soil cells is what soil cells is that what he means okay yeah I think we found a solution though to one of Steve's problems there's a value to palm trees cu the roots go down well yeah but there as he said just big BL of not really trees you you're replacing a tree with not a tree like that's canopy tree with not a tree in Coral Gables they look good maybe not here right okay so page seven um five large trees and buffer areas we um amended five which um it says unless otherwise stated in this articles large trees shall be required in landscape buffers interior landscape parking areas or perimeter um parking buffers so we U required large trees in the buffers we also deleted um six which is specific trees en courage this is for wildlife so it says the use of trees known to provide food for birds and other Wildlife is encouraged to attract birds and reduce mosquito population we reduced we removed it because we thought it was fluff it's um it's encouraged it's not required um and then we also placed if you'll remember earlier in the presentation we talked about we how we deleted the trunk caliper um and I told you all that we put it in a a different section so this is where we um place a trunk caliper for large trees and it says all trees shall have a minimum of minimum trunk caliper measur me of 2 and 1/2 in measured at 6 in above grade at the time of Tree installation except that medium and small multi- stem species may have a minimum container size of 45 gallons and that language was taken from the existing code um for medium trees medium and small multi- stem trees Debra I think 45 gallons is very large I think 30 gallons would suffice and we I suggest that we change that to 30 gallons should we put that on our landscape architect list no we can go ahead and cross it and just say 30 gallons and then um just ask the consultant if the 30 gallons is appropriate see mine get deferred yours get changed I'm going to change chairs with you we know you hate trees Dave so it's okay I love trees you just have too many comments no I'm kidding do we know why they went with 45 here good that why did they recommend 45 like um 45 is what we have existing so it's not new language we move that language into this section so um we can we've been changing the sizes throughout the document so we can change it to 30 gallons thank you Dave did you have any comments on this one no you'd like to include no thank you I I wanted to make David Hall's expression change so I said no so let's defer the no to the next yeah we'll defer that we'll defer the no so I could say yes later thank you I have a question we're taking out number six with the specific trees but when we talk with the landscape architect we might be coming we're going to come up with a specific tree suggestion list so this we are going to have a suggested list for of trees but this one in particular is for um providing food for birds and other Wildlife so we were not we didn't think it was we're not going to check to see who has a tree for birds and other Wildlife so it's not something we're going to monitor and it's encouraged and not required so we took that out I was waiting to see if you were changing that to make it human edible plants just just curious or or the mosquito populations for that matter love that to have edible Pointes I would love to require that okay so on page seven um this is the table the required mix species mix so they have a required species mixed um but we what we want them to do is to add where it says 41 to say 41 or greater for the mix of species so that was their proposed language right that's their proposed language so it's when 10 or more trees are required to be planted to meet the requirements of this chapter a mix of tree species shall be provided at least one of which shall be native to central Florida region the minimum number of species to be planted are indicated below and so they have the um type the number of trees and then the species that's native to central florid region and they don't have anything related to anything that's above 41 trees so we're asking them to change that that looks good to everyone okay you agree that okay on page eight um table 12.2 it's the table of proposed buffer yards and and in this um when they came to us when kimy horn came to us they talked about integrating um the landscape um instead of using buffers they were going to integrate um the Landscaping into the uses so we have not seen where they have proposed that yet so we want to have them explain this table to us and how they're proposing to integrate the buffers with the uses so you have previously somewhere stated that this doesn't apply in downtown mixed use areas right okay except next to single family right except single family exactly yeah so we also have this um street called Railroad Street we want to take that out we don't even know where it is anymore um so we want to take that out as well so we told them to take that out and it's almost gone it's almost gone right it's it's half gone yeah is there a consensus yes okay page [Music] nine it's Mr chairman is it okay if we do a quick break okay 10 minutes 10 minutes go very she's English my greatest are you you blown pluging I'm yeah disconnect did you get a chance to talk I wrote this because I was going to forget Chris wner asked if basically the situation is a single family resident is talking with their insurance company [Music] I've written something deleted it wrote it again deleted it and then gave up on it give me a second I never knew about suicidal trees before encircling themselves to to kill themselves what's that it would make sense I never thought about it I guess plants do well in the right place you got to do it so if you want to have an urban maturee what's that yeah but want to get a urban Forest tree canopy you've got to go for the large tree yeah so so what what they're really referring to is the Connector Road that's being designed now was redesigned or is being redesigned to put in those those soil cells so that the trees survive and they're close together but they're also fical growth habit trees so they're special trees you can't them the back because they're too close to the building F so that's why I'm telling them if you have an urban form and you don't have the street tree County you have no trees so how do you how do you plant a tree in the middle of this building you don't only only only the resal that were small else yet oh I I understand forgiveness is easier go go look go look in front of the paner even though they took some out it's kind of funny so so what happened I didn't I I knew it was weird it wasn't my private but it was my Cent's so I'm trying to like influence them and do something more sensible and I had a meeting with with a past mayor say hi and we're sitting outside and J remember there and Public Works is there police chief is there he comes over to say hi I'm like what's going on well development services having account of these trees make damn sense and I just couldn't stop laughing and Tom's like why is that so funny you have no idea how many times I said that nobody car like this isn't going to work well so one thing I know deal so you were on the last were you on the last you were so on the last committee was an unlimed rep and to turn AC are you guys I have this Shir nobody's cold everybody looks comfortable except for Mr to be TI it should be zero he's but they're saying trip their view is must because you and that's what they're saying $7,000 you know and that's why I say I get but if you're doing something forit my simple I like as much as the next guy and I thought when I proposed it back then if I said nobody should be have to PL more than actual requ that that I would lose so I double and I was dou Triple because the Cod right well so the way that yeah I don't know how far will get I can show them of what we do now think that's give them a glance of what we we're proposing no no no no just the so we're going to name all changes after you leave as the Don pton Memorial so when they put that utility language there I'm like it's Don's langu it's Don's language right there oh I haven't seen that yet they put the they put the sidewalk oh okay okay okay so that that's for you to walk on I did that for you that's your new path right right right but what I'm saying is that's your new path I'm trying to give you so so what's funny when I used to drive somewhere my wife doesn't much anymore I used to drive one way there different way so see what's going on she accused me go you just tried to so so I actually was trying to do that as a City so so when I can and I and I can I'll use my influence is it I think it's a good thing yeah yeah you're talking uh uh the that's son I don't know who that is the white one the people that bought that yeah okay because that's sold recently so I don't know yeah the white the white one on the corner the multicolored on so I I sold that um two times ago two times ago when no one would buy it so it always did not not the multicolored one white one but it was such a great lot but at the time I'm saying this is set up perfect for parking lot for conversion to office it's a beautiful building not a soul buy and when I sold that this is years ago not recently it sold for 600 something but then I'm like it's sold as a house because no one will buy it as a house just the market okay so on page nine under um D where it says the adjacent property buffer is greater than the vehicular use area buffer requirements sub section 12 12.5 the adjacent property buffer is required under no circumstances should the adjacent property buffer be required in addition to the vehicular use area buffer requirements of section 12.5 um so we want them to explain this section because it's not making sense and then e where it says where a building perimeter landscape is required and there is no parking or vehicular circulation between the building and the RightWay but yard landscaping May count towards building perimeter landscape requirements so they introduced the new building perimeter landscape requirements so um we'll talk about that later as well um so basically it's clarification of d& and then in e um and we're not quite sure if we're comfortable with the um building landscape with the perimeter building perimeter landscape requirement so in F buffard composition uh we deleted a 6 foot high decorative brick wall consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and subject my computer just shut off I'm so sorry okay and subject to the government body approval shall be required between commercial and residential zoning districts chain link fences shall have a vinyl coating we deleted that because we didn't think it it made sense to go into the buffer yard composition so we removed that language all right any comment on that so we're addressing e later in the section where they put it okay okay and D I think is backwards it's kind of weird it is weird yeah so you're asking that yeah we're asking them to explain is that do you all feel the same way okay but are we they would like to haveing we are when we get to that section okay okay on page nine it talks on table 12.3 which is a table of buffer yard descriptions we want them to provide a maximum height for the shrub rows and provide a visual aid graphic as you'll see that they're now requiring um shrub row if you go down it's there and and this is for um Buffy RB as well as C1 and C2 so in addition to the trees that's required they're requiring an evergreen shrub row and it has breakes um for pedestrian circulation so we want them to provide a a maximum height for the shrub roads because they can grow pretty tall so can I ask a a question M and maybe remembering this wrong so shrub rows invariably get installed and get maintained in a horrible awful fashion and look terrible and I thought the City View was to kind of get away from those not have those because they you know and it's hard to enforce because you have like and I've heard the story about the CVS you've got someone who bought the triple net lease that doesn't care you got a tenant that doesn't care so you're sitting there trying to make them make this shrub R look better and it's pain in the butt so they're putting them in and I think small and medium trees just looks better shrub rows are just a maintenance nightmare to me just just my comment so I don't know if staff has a view on that or not I think we should get rid of them not put them in so I remember in the past we used to have it with one of the seab buffers and it used to be that it had to be um 100% % opaque and so the difficulty was making sure that it was always opaque with the shrubs this isn't providing for that opacity it's just providing for another row of I guess Landscaping I'm not quite sure why it's being required um so I guess we could ask why is it being required so I I think it's a bad idea because it it just drive around it it ends up in time looking more awful than if you didn't put it in just my opinion I don't know if other people agree so I I think the the buffers have been sufficient and adding another element is just another maintenance issue and another Enforcement issue for the city so I I think they should be out that's just my opinion I don't know if folks agree well I think it is an Enforcement issue and we're not enforcing it so looks like crap currently so I agree if if we're why add more code that we're not going to enforce versus you know we've got code that could be enforced and make that look good but we just don't go enforce them right now so I'd agree at least ask the question why it's there I just noticed I didn't notice this portion or this insertion before and my question from administrative level is how do we apply this standard so I understand that they're saying continuous evergreen shrub row but what does that mean as far as plantings how many plantings what size plantings need to go so there's a a metric that needs to be involved here involved here that is has been left out if it's going to be something that we that we maintain in the code I'm suggesting we solve the problem and toss it because to your point so you have this area and you've got trees and shrubs and now you're also dealing typically in these areas with utilities or drainage or something so here's this continuous shrub row but it's not because you have small and medium trees so it it ends up being kind of absurd we also have these requirements Elsewhere for low water use shrubs are usually not low water use so to me this is extremely counterproductive Gloria smiling but not saying anything hat doesn't like the idea either and she has been voicing that well would you like to respond because there is an opacity issue and requirement there so what what I think for Gloria was a it's a preference right well I just don't understand why we're creating these walls of shrubs now in the buffers makes no sense to me uh we're supposed to go to an urban environment we're and we're creating little walls so so this is I don't understand this relates to the question that we posed before that uh when the consultant came here they talked about adjusting the code to Urban standards so buffers are usually a Suburban standard right buffering you know one use from the other and she talked about using landscape as an integration between users and we haven't seen that reflected in the standards so this is part of the questions that so how about this I suggest we get rid of in uh I think it's in bc1 and C2 the requirement for shrubs if the if the consultant comes and explains to us a reason why we should have them we could always put it back in but I think we need to get rid of that because we've got staff not really wanting to enforce this you you're saying it doesn't make sense for urban and I think it's a mistake and they don't get maintained now so can we remove it from here and address it with the plan that you're going to bring back through it be can the recommendation is to remove and then you know if they convince us to put it back we can do that at a subsequent meeting but the other question I have related to that is why are they talking only about evergreen shrub row and not regular shrubs that aren't Evergreens I mean I don't get the distinction so I'd really like to get more clarity from what they're talking about evergreen shrub rows will tend to have more opacity for for the entire year I think is what they're trying to get at and and what we're saying is that doesn't really make sense for what we're doing and the example to to restate it often times these Standalone buildings on the main roads are bought by somebody with buying a triple net lease income and and the city trying to code enforce these things is a living nightmare because nobody cares nobody pays attention and I don't know I think the CVS was the example I knew of well but there is a distinction is it's we we the fact that we will not require doesn't mean that people cannot plant right again they can propose if they want to you know but we would not be required okay so we will recommend that we remove it from here for now and add it to the plan that will be presented and if needed or recommended we can put it back we'll we'll have the consultant address that one not the plan that's going to be but we're saying now I think we're going to delete it right now we're deleting it and have the consultant address the questions yes okay all right so on in the note on the in that same table at the bottom it says for the purposes of this table the mature height of small trees shall reach a minimum of um they changed it to from 15 to 30 that's a big tree that's not a small tree I know so our question to them is why did they change the height um and we want it back at 15 so uh what is the consensus of 15 as why they Chang it 15 15 is enough yes okay so on page okay page 10 h okay it says buffer yards included in setback requirements buffer yards may be counted towards satisfying zoning District building setbacks open space requirements and may be used for Passive Recreation then it says trees and buffer yards count towards the minimum required number of onsite trees included in table 12.1 and we want them to explain what this means well unless you say trees don't count like the street tree thing they do count by definition right they're on the lot they count as trees you you count them right Harris they're counting so it's strange language I I would agree no this is good they count so okay so we was just clarifying yeah we're just clarifying what that means and then um 12.5 where it talks about vehicular use area Landscaping vehicular use areas interior to the required land use buffer yards shall be landscaped according to the following minimum criteria and then this section our comment is that this section is very confusing we need visual aids and why are parking Island Trees removed we would like our parking areas to have trees and pedestrian connectivity the section appears to remove parking islands and parking Island trees and that is 12.5 so I I I have a suggestion to ask them um and one of the ways to to deal with this right now we end up in these Perpetual conflicts with the islands because you've got utilities you've got lights you've got all these things and I I think perhaps another way to do this is to have a maximum distance from trees to parking spots so that you get coverage over the lot and to give Hank his due even though he's not here it's a little more flexibility for the developer and the designer to get the shade without trying to force them into these islands where where there's conflicts so that way someone with only a coup rows of parking can go all the way around the perimeter and get the same effect without Islands you know there's just different ways so just a question for them as to different methodologies instead of the islands which creates a lot of Heartache I think okay yeah I think we also address this by in some areas we encouraged clustering of trees instead of a tree in every Grass Island so this goes along with that just encourage clustering yeah we could do because the idea is to cover is provide shade in the parking lot as well so if you cluster them you know you don't provide that shade along the along the parking lot that's why they were you know I I see the point that Dave is bringing because we have a lot of deviations to Island Trees because we have conflicts of you know but the idea is that you you have the islands and the islands are providing some shade to the parking lot see for example if you have a tree with a mature spread of of let's say 80 feet and trees are are within 50 or 60 feet of all parking spots then you're going to have kind of 50% shade coverage in the middle of the day you understand so it's just a way of doing it so that designers can actually instead of trying to force these trees in these confined spaces find ways to do it in a more sensible way and and maybe we can do that as an alternative right say ideally if you have comfortable islands and no conflict put on the islands right but if they cannot for any reason then well so then you provide another alternative way to to shade in the urban area and I think you're doing this if the deal moves forward with purn you you had a walkway with trees like a pedestrian walkway so if one of those is in the middle of a parking lot then there's no need for Island Trees because you now have a center strip of trees you see what I'm saying so just opening this up but if we're going to have a landscape architect here saying okay how how would we write that alternative because you want the shade like you're saying saying but not the prescriptive Island thing that is a is a dance every time so in the architectural section the way we kind of deal a little bit with that is to say the intent right so the intent of the Island Trees is to shade the parking lot if you can provide the intent in in different ways no I think you're right every 100 fet generally there is one Green Island and it has a tree but sometimes there's another Island after 30 ft then you don't need another tree there because there is a tree 30 ft away so every Grass Island can have a tree as long as it is 100 ft apart that still Shades the parking lot right I mean I understand understand that when we're doing site planning these landscape Islands become a bit of a conflict sometimes especially with the smaller sites and uh the deviation process allows for that creativity and staff has typically been supportive of that creativity especially when we have utility conflict you know we always want we we always rather support that utility as opposed to the tree and and have an alternative for that tree to be loc or alter alternative place for that tree to be located and most of the time able stay within staff administrative approval with those plans so I I think to Teresa's point that the code requiring it but also allows for the deviation and mitigation for that tree to be provided elsewhere and in a more creative fashion as you said well and I'm just suggesting you write into this this alternative which is providing some shade coverage methodology without creating a complicated thing for you to review which is you know no parking spot should be more than x feet from the center of a tree is a very simple way to do that because then you get the coverage without you know I've seen some codes that are almost absurd where they're calculating canopy widths and all kinds of weird things we don't need to be getting into that sess I could see you won't enjoy it very much if you do right so um were there any other comments because I think what we can put in here is that um for Kim horn to create a different some various methodologies to provide shade um for the parking area if POS yeah I think well you said the words intent what's the intent and do we think this hits the intent so the intent is to shade right right and do we does this roll down and give because I'm like going vehicular interior BL blah shall be landscaped according to the foll minimum criteria and it's all crossed out is there more below it thank you do we think that that hits the intent otherwise I'd say yeah exactly then have them look at the intent is that required to shake because because I'm just looking at Google Maps going boy there's every parking lot is so different looking in terms of if there are trees first of all I some of them I go is there trees in there yeah there might be and yeah it's great that they're right along the outside edge of all these things there's not a shaded car to be found and then there's another one oh a smaller single building that you could tell they put work into the building oh that there a lot of shady trees but like I said it's big difference so I would say exactly you know use the word intent and say to them does this hit the intent of having shade within the parking lot and how would that be do we want to shade every car or 50 you know have some criteria 50% of the Cs 25% of the Cs should be shaded by rough design or thought and maybe the pathways walking in or something like that because that to me is kind of more important too is if you're walking in a Publix or whatever on that you know that those little walkways maybe they're shaded and that will also shade some of the cars but you getting shade on the walkways at least as you're walking in versus burning up as you're walking in but yet seven cars get shade you know that kind of thing so just I hope this is obvious but I'll say it anyway you're talking about vehicular use areas obviously structured parking is hard to plant trees in in their vehicular use areas so I think we need to kind of be clear maybe app that so we can put surface yeah does it make sense yeah surface yeah okay and then put it again after Landscaping in front of vehicular and the same sentence surface vehicular useal escaping and put surface and then what was the comment that you put I'm not done like guidance um to provide shade is there a percentage shade no what I what I was really trying to come up with was just a a maximum distance from a large tree to every parking spot which would create it by extension however they design it now if you look at what they did so if you consider a smaller use they're typically going to have one Central driveway with parking on both sides and you've got this item number seven at least in the printed one I've got which makes no sense whatsoever unless you've got more of a retail Center type Big Field of parking it it just doesn't make any sense so how do you put a Central landscape strip with a pedestrian walkway when there's just two rows of parking you you can't do it it makes no sense so I could see this the way it's written as being kind of a conflict so I look at that as a way in a larger parking lot to provide the trees but prescriptively requiring it I think for most people does not work any other comments on that one do you see what I'm saying I see I see so they're going to come back and have to explain this stuff to us and give us an alternative I guess no just like go back down to C at it the the title is new but the majority of it is not underlined so unless they just rename the title I'm not sure okay so we'll talk to them about that okay so you're at my favorite part yes let me get to it so with a short explanation without getting into what I did at the last meeting okay I I think B makes no sense at all and should just come out and if you want me to explain why I this building perimeter right building perimeter Landscaping so if you want an explanation I'll explain but I just think it's ridiculous and should be stff agree to remove that we have questions we have a lot of questions about it then let's talk about yeah so you want me to tell you why go ahead okay so here we are talking Urban form and I think this right here says build a nice building we're going to have architectural standards have a street wall effect by building the the building next to the street um you have constrained area because you're building at a high density but now you should put this Landscaping with trees right next to the building and block the building from view when you're trying to invite pedestrians into the building it's like the total opposite of urban form and it makes no sense at all to me I I just don't understand why it's even here so there's additional Landscaping requirement so this one the building perimeter Landscaping is um a landscape area between the building and the public RightWay along the primary facade so we think it also conflicts with the streetcape um requirements that they have implemented as well as then these are new streetcape requirements we had um comments about why hide the buildings um if they're going to comply with the architectural standards anyway because now we're going to have um we already have architectural standards they're supposed to be upgrading our architectural standards and so why have additional AR um landscaping around the building is basically hiding the building as they um mentioned so we also are recommending um to remove this section as staff okay yeah we I think we have a not not always landscape next to the building is a good thing right depending on the landscape you put um they are requiring even for the target areas a minimum of five feet so it looks like like a buffer requirement right and then if we have a retail Zone area if you want to activate the facade if there is a a bar a cafe you know a restaurant and you have sidewalks U tables right um in the retail Zone that it's kind of it's a conflict so usually in these more urban areas we have Planters right people can landscape with Planters and uh again does not preclude anyone if the design calls for this landscape to provide it but we we don't think it makes sense to require okay if if you agree then let's remove it any comment here we we agree to remove it go ahead consensus to remove it okay the next one is going to be on page 12 this one is going to be C parking garages I do have well actually this would have been probably just yeah what is this okay parking garages yeah Dave has a comment here uh Dave says large tree spacing of 25 is too close uh large trees planted within a 5ft buffer strip are too close to the parking garage so it's the same really the same comment as before apply architectural standards to parking garages and make them part of your street wall and don't hide them so that that's that's just my view I I don't quite understand what they're doing yeah we're not quite sure either um so this one you have to have a perimeter l escaping required for parking garages were adjacent to a sidewalk and it it says it must be 5T in depth and shall be planted with A continuous planting consisting of landscaping capable of achieving a minimum of 30 Ines in height except we're interrupted by vehicular or pedestrian circulation and then if you go down then it talks about one understory tree or palm tree planted for each 15 ft or fraction thereof of the lineal building facade except that one large tree may be planted for each 25 ft a fraction thereof of the lineal building facade if the landscape area is a minimum of 10t in depth so we're not quite sure if both A and B are required or if it's just one or the other um and then if it's in addition to the streetcape requirement would it be better suited as an optional articulation um architectural element so we also want kimy horn to um address Landscape and Lighting along walkways especially between parking garages and buildings and other Pathways so they didn't discuss that in terms of the garage parking garage which is the Landscaping lighting along the walkways so sounds similar to um Lake Nona where the garage is really by itself and it's just roads around the parking garage so then the planning makes sense because the garage is really the parking structure is really just by itself so I think and and we don't have quite from them robust architectural standards but if you require a parking garage to be hidden from view or have a similar arit ual treatment to these buildings then why block it so I think you're talking about is that the one that I call the digital parking garage it's got zeros and ones yes yeah yeah so that's it's kind of weird because that's kind of a Suburban parking garage and I don't think we're doing those if you require the architectural integration why do you say that is a Suburban parking rot there because where they have it place like she's saying it's detached from the other stuff it's kind of in a separate area you go park there and walk to that area where that's that's very Urban right that's the one so well I'm just saying it's it's setting but even this you know it's got Steven Blades of grass well yeah yeah they they could have planted trees but I tend to like palm trees um Mr shank so that is a they're fine they're just they're just not as a replacement for a it's not a it's a tring something a tall grass Brian always said plates of grass for a tree it's like you're it's a tall grass but it's beautiful I I think it provides landscape right so so in this circumstance you're staring into a field of parking on the ground floor you've got no architectural treatment on the ground floor so their choice place was Landscaping but in a circumstance where it's integrated with a building along a street wall well but it's not required everywhere right if you see not even there is required everywhere so if you see the other the other questioning their requirement it's like they're making it a separate distinct thing surrounded by Landscaping so here it's not there there are no shrubs or there are no um there are no there are there's no lens Cape next to the yeah but they they brought art they brought you know they brought that's the digital I think that's we just it's the digital one yeah there yeah that's what it's called no there is the tower the tower has has art projected so it's it's it's a mural that changes at night right that looks like the Curtis Stanton cooling tower but it's just small so they want landscaping around so we we need to get a visual of what it looks like what they're proposing with the new standards here um so we're asking them for that and whether or not A and B are both required or if it's just a I think da have a point that you know the standard should be there but part of that is it's they left it open on the bottom so there's no there's nothing there so it should be covered up somehow and Landscapes the obvious choice or build down but if you know like over in by Rollins where the you know the those buildings that are built to integrate within or some of the apartment buildings that the first four floors are parking you know and they look like the rest of the building how does that you know do you have all this do you do extra stuff for that that's really unnecessary at that or if the parking garage is internal right and it's wrapped by building so that would not make sense so I think it it that could be one of the ways to articulate a faade is to use landscape but should not be necessarily A a requirement well so so further than that in a core area where you're trying to create a walkable Street wall you don't really want a wide enough landscape area for large trees which obliterates the street wall so they're saying 5T but you can't can't plant a large tree 5et in in the center of a 5 foot landscape buffer two and a half fet from a building and have it make sense so I'm just looking at this as I I think require the garage to be integrated into the architecture of the building or hidden from view what one or the other and to your point if they can't there's a possible mitigation but if if the mitigation creates such a wide landscape buffer that you've oblit at your walkability and your street wall it makes well but you can have a 5T without trees right you can have landscape you can have you know shrubs and palms and whatever so well that's not the way that this is written it's written to require landscape so we we'll have to put in there we can it does ldcc um for parking garages um is there a consensus to either have it to have three Choice more multiple choices one to integrated into the building um to have um what was it that you were saying not necessarily Landscaping but well this to be an or but I think the interplay here is between the architectural standards that are not yet robustly provided by them you know so you don't need this if you have that so I think this is in in the absence of meeting a standard we haven't yet seen right yeah that Landscaping should not be requireed do you like the digital garage but used as an option it's garage I do I think it's I like I've seen worse I've seen better it's not it's in the middle I've seen better that I like better it's and it's it's well they have that they have the other one that have colors right that they have panels with colors interesting and its own on and then you kind of go like okay it's just okay page 12 I think we're almost finished with this article okay so page 12d Landscaping adjacent def fences walls or dumpster enclosures for multif family and Commercial developments any opaque fence wall or dumpster enclosure shall be landscaped as follows then it talks about the shrubs shall be required for every 5T of wall or fence shrubs may be clust into groups um and then it has other different requirements so the um one of the things that we do have is a Prohibition on chain link fences um so this it does allow for chain link fence right and so we have prohibited chain link fences and then also there's a question is is this only for service areas or any fence Walls Within multif family and Commercial development if only for service areas please title it as such um and then also we have a comment to remove this section and keep the current requirement for screen dumpster enclosures only so we have a a requirement for dumpster enclosures and the dumpster enclosures and we think that this is what they are trying to do but it's they're it's not saying it um our dumpster enclosure is at the enclosure has to be one foot higher than the dumpster that it it screens um and then there is a screening um requirement for it so we're saying for them to go back to our existing language for dumpster enclosures and then to move this language to Article Five where it talks about accessory um structures so we want them to to move this to Article Five well it's already in Article Five is the all right any comment on that um Dave I don't think it makes a lot of sense where you have again an urban streetcape so I think the staff hit it on the the head though if this is for dumpsters and utility structures and things of that nature and it's covered in another article why do we even need this so so think about we're going to have Urban form and you've got a decorative fence or a wall and where you don't have that you have a building if you're not buffering the building why you buffering the wall that looks like the building it doesn't I I don't understand honestly so I don't know if that kind of gels with what you're saying yeah so I I think this should be dealt with like they're saying in Article Five and come at it here like d we we don't need right right deleted so that's all right if staff agrees we can move it from here sounds good if that's a way to add more Greenery does that take a lot of space um what dumpster did we look at was it paner that we took a look that dumpster if there's a way to act Greenly she asked does it take up more space not necessarily okay I was just thinking maybe it's a a way to it depends on where they put it okay the dumpster is there this one if you see that dumpster and it has what project are we looking at this one is paner so LA Fitness is back this way there's shrubs in the back but it's not necessarily around the dumpster right it's in the island there's an in I'm getting dizzy yeah needs a cleaning of the p job but you know little pressure washing yeah little pressure wash well we don't know if this is a current picture oh that's true it's uh 2022 yeah so if you just specifically have it for the dumpster landscape for the dumpster it may take up more space okay that was my thought I would love to have more green um but not trying to you know take up all of the works the space for the project either so you want the that's a good job of integration too kind of a lot of them are standing on their own not really but that's kind of integrated with the trees around it so do you all want to keep the the landscap we talk about deleting that I think this comment was a different thing so just discussion wise if if what we're doing in an urban area is pushing buildings up to the street we're GNA then fences and walls up to the street are usually going to be there to screen something from View and that's what's doing the screening so now saying let's add landscape to screen the wall and the fence that's being put into screen whatever it is a vehicular use area or something it's just pushing things further and further away from the street when we're trying to enclose the street so there's other ways to do the landscape and although I would say in practice although there's no specific open space requirement for example in Ovito in the park there's open space on every project because they're surface Park na vehicle use areas so they're they're typic and I don't know the numbers you guys have seen them but I would think at least 10% sometimes 15 20% right effectively by the time they're done if you if we end up with parking garages it's going to be a lower number you know and that's kind of where my comment came from of the streets are important because that's where the trees are so maybe it we do have a comment on here that landscaping for dumpsters should be required in addition to the fence or wall um it's it's up to the board well if it is there then that's sufficient so today Landscaping is is not require just the wall just the wall well I'm fine getting rid of this like we said so you guys you have Article Five to play with that stuff and play with it there okay so Dave are you fine with that getting rid of it so D gone so we have one two three are you get ready of it so we have four against one so we'll get ready of it okay we're we're not against her no no that's just a vote for against one get rid of it okay so um page 12 um 12.7 a design so it says site development plans shall be designed to retain and incorporate into the plan as many existing trees as possible building and Parking Lot locations sizes and shapes will be altered as feasible and this is for the fla friendly landscape um in order um to preserve existing trees then they struck out plants with similar water and cultural soil eliminate Sun and light requirements shall be grouped together uh we want the staff wants them to put back into the this section the water use zon shall be shown on the irrigation legout and planting plans and this is because we need to see on the plans um where they're going to have their water use Z zones you know the low tolerant plant um all of that we need to we need to see because we that's how we calculate and that's how we approve because we need to see it on the plant so we want the zones to be shown on the plans okay so did you fix the language snafu in my copy under C it says 2030 and then it says 3020 you fixed it okay okay in in my print out it's weird looking okay so is there a consensus for a designed to keep the water use Zone shall be shown on the irrigation layout and planting plans this is what um our staff reviews sure sure okay okay and then see high water use zones this says high water use zon shall comprise a maximum of they remove 30 and put 20% of the Total Landscape area all portions of high water use zones shall be provided with Central Automatic Irrigation Systems then they added if high water use Zone area comprises less than 20% of the landscaped area the applicant can increase the medium water use Zone area to an amount equal two or less than the amount of the low water use Zone area so staff's comment was please modify to 80 and 20 per the changes above to the zones so I have an observation from going through reviews and I'm not sure if we can clarify this in the code so trees typically have bubblers bubblers are high water use but I think when the projects are being reviewed the entire area is being counted by the reviewer is high water use do you understand what I'm saying so you've got this L this irrigation plan with these two or three bubblers oh the whole area is high water use but it's not so it becomes a little challenging to count this unless you accept the trees or the bubblers within you know required trees shouldn't punish you for water Zone stuff you understand what I'm saying it's really Turf and ground cover we're talking about so I'm not sure how to say this but right now it's causing problems and I think Harris is on the receiving end of of The Angst on both sides of that right yeah so so I think he can confirm we're I go through that on almost every project right now it's and uh so let make the the comment to talk to the consultant but also to talk to Jay right yeah well if Jay is given away because the code says required trees with bubblers don't make an area high water use if we can just say that then it's no longer some interpretation thing he's forced into I think that's what's happening it's not his fault I mean how do you what what do you call it do you put a circle around the tree and call it high for this little radius it gets silly you understand what I'm saying so I'm suggesting um irrigation for required trees but you have to Nuance this because that doesn't mean you put in these big rotors to cover that whole area you know so I think bubblers designed to to irrigate require trees sufficiently should not count should not make an entire area count as high water usage I'm not quite sure how to write it right we'll have that's right J can help and and then we'll instead of writing the language in there we're just going to put it as a comment talk to Jay about it and then let the consultant all well a way to keep him out of the crosshairs on that because it causes back and forth with applicants uh your staff look at him shaking his head over there CU it's happened on the past three or four projects I've done it's it's just angst for everybody com to speak with okay let's put some comment we knowers water com so so one one comment that I didn't write on on this stuff on on D where it says mulch it talks about Deborah are you on something else I'm sorry yeah we're just writing in here okay should not be considered high water okay what what did you say so so in D in D at the last sentence it talks about plastic sheeting and other impervious should not be used under mulched areas and it just got me to thinking of something I personally consider rather hideous and it's it's um plastic mulch if you've seen it oh this D Big D it's pretty awful stuff like recycled tire Mulch and things like that so I I think that we should prohibit non-natural materials from being M that's just my thought now sustainability people would tell you that's great recycling but I think it's awful personally should be recycling for something else yeah well right but right now it just requires mulch but doesn't say what it is doesn't say in the last sentence yeah no that's that's what's under it so okay so it allows gravel River Rock I think where it says does that say shall that should be shell shall not oh no I think that mean they mean shell gravel River Rock and and shell as landscape mulch but so what I'm suggesting is that we preclude rubber plastic things of that nature so so non-natural materials we're not prohibiting it someone's going to use it and say well it doesn't say I can and I I just think the stuff's awful Isn't it already at the bottom there says plastic sheet no that's under it so where people sometimes put a layer up contr we can yeah artificial how do we say nonorganic just remove the word under then it's that just eliminates well but that's imperious materials under that's a different thing simar rubber mulch and similar nonorganic yeah that works not well n natural n natural right are is is gravel River Rock and and shell what's organic mean has what does natural mean it's all river rock is natural but this syn synthesized material that's a better way it that's very natural I would just say Rubber Mulch asri Rubber Mulch and similar rubber is not natural right well rubber isimar you you can get latex out of a tree well but not rubber right you get latex yeah you can get the yeah but the rubber TIR is now are synthesized from rubber tree yeah we go everything isch okay um we under C if you go back to C we wanted to limit the use of artificial turf and places where it can go and this is um turf turf grass the type and location of turf turf grass areas shall be selected in the same manner as with all other plantings irrigated turf turf grass areas are considered to be high water used zones irrigated turf turf grass areas shall not be treated as a Fillin material but rather as a planned element of landscaping the turf turf grass area shall be identified on the landscape plants we want to limit the use of artificial turf in places where it can go um we were told that this um is being prohibited in other areas um artificial turf into Gloria it's been prohibited in Europe because why that a high water no no no we're we're not in high water use we're see turf turf grass is that what we're looking at yeah it consider it why are you irrigating turf grass when I read that the first time I'm thinking of like AO the par they hose it down you know the dogs are G prohibiting so so actually that's really weird because there's some more resilient turf grass that is not high water use so so frankly Bea doesn't need to be irrigated and it is in high water use and this is another point of contention so you can have native grasses that are not high water use that are turf grass so I think whether it's high we're trying to limit artificial I understand but I'm just reading this section and it's defining any irrigated turf grass as high water use and that's not necessarily correct so you know it's saying basically that St Augustine is the same as Bea or Bermuda which is not true you'd rather have those more uh water conscious Turf grasses and this kind of classifies them all the same but the behav you don't have to irrigate it all and so uh you've got to establish it but after that not really are deep the one problem it's not pretty needs to re nobody the SE it has to grow out to have every year every season grass spread Runners so for example I'll just give you an example often times you got a dry retention Pond or even a wet retention Pond the side slopes are going to be Bea and when you look at this it's not Jay's fault that he's telling you this area that you don't even want to irrigate is considered high water usage and you're kind of stuck because your entire maintenance SPM inside slope of your pond is usually Bea you don't want to irrigate and right here they're counting it as high water use and it's like no water use you understand well but here here it says if it's IR at then it counts as high water use if it's not irrigated then it doesn't counts but but you have this Catch 22 you have to establish it well well understood but if you well so if you Capital outlay irrigation uh so how about this permanently irrigated if you just add that word in front of that sentence I think that I think that Bridges the Gap that you're talking about yeah I know what you're saying is is you you don't want astro turf because it really hurts the football players when they play it actually does we'll have to um get with Jay on that one as well what we can put on the comment head to Brooklyn St should this should we place permanent it's too hot to ship is it is that the consensus of the board okay so we're going to talk with Jay about putting the word permanent in front of it so so I would also ask him are there types of turf grass that are lower water usage because we should encourage that you know so so there might be some that you're irrigating that take less water and I'm not expert on that but I I would think that that you know now of course it's Florida got heat so Harris is looking over there it's all going to die if you don't want yeah it's going to crispy crispy yeah there's only one person Ono that rolls around on it so it's okay or allows the seeds head to [Laughter] go Okay so we've already talked about mulch our question for mulch was are there types of mulch or stone we should avoid for ethical or sustainability reasons and then we wanted um kimley horn to provide a list of unsustainable mulch so that we can prohibit for d for mulch and then that is it for article 12 all right so you don't like like maluca mulch Brazilian pepper mul exotic exilian pepper exotic do they sell Brazilian pepper mulch is that a way to to get rid of that stuff they they tried to sell everything maluca when it invaded South you know West Florida how do we cut this we're trying to sell shampoo remember they were trying to sell everything okay now we're going into Article 15 so on page one of Article 15 we had some comments so our original Article 15 there was some original language that was there that the Consultants removed and we want to put that language back can you go to Article 15 the code of ordinance so we we want um we want go through the beginning we want Maps back those exhibits we want the exhibits back because it shows um some of the things that we refer to like the econ Basin it shows a lot of that so we want to put that back in there and then um they did not show this section as being strike through an underline so we it was kind of difficult to to realize what was new and what was um existing so we've told them a lot in here to show strike through an underline um because they deleted some stuff and they didn't show it as being deleted Article 15 okay and also we want to put the trees in one section so we want to move Article 15 to either article 12 or move article 12 to Article 15 everything related to trees should be in one section and then we also want them in this section to clarify the caliper or dbh diameter at breast height um use one or the other and we talked about that in the beginning of article 12 so in page one of Article 15 and we're not going to get through all of Article 15 staff we at staff we did not go through all of Article 15 so we're going to stop um where we stopped okay um so page one there was a in 15.1 they deleted um the exhibits and there was some additional language that we wanted them to put back in 15.1 and then um in [Music] B1 it's a clear it's the clearing procedure it says the city why does it say The city applicant it should be the applicant the city shall require um the proposals for development identify and locate any on-site plant and Wildlife species listed as endangered and threatened by the state and federal Regulatory Agencies um we deleted what was provided below a strike through and added the new language so we'll have to word it right so so let me ask you a question so this typically there's already agencies of the state and federal government that require all this so is this duplicative you know so are we now doing a city report because already you get a threatening danger species assessment that you know this this kind of makes it sound like a new separate requirement no it's not a separate requirement we already require it anyway and it comes from it's state and federal it but we also take a look at it so so you're just saying you just you just want it you want a copy of it you want to get it okay I got you we recommended that before so this is doing what we yeah that's fine I'm just trying to understand okay on page four uh a that was removed it was not shown a stri through and we want to keep this language it says absolutely no fill um building materials trash or other objects shall be plac inside these barriers if you go to the top let's see what this one is about this one is about protective barricades around all the trees and stuff right so absolutely no fill building materials trash or other objects shall be placed inside these barriers um if fill is deposit adjacent to these areas a suitable temporary a permanent retaining structure shall be constructed to prevent um siltation of barricaded areas and then B uh this B was changed to a because they removed a so um we were asking what happened to the previous language but we put it back in inside which is now the a okay page five um three use of temporary alternate surfaces and traffic areas says where traffic areas are proposed at or near natural grade alternative um perious surfaces such as we deleted such as Turf block may be used in conjunction with stone or gravel um the comment is is this intended to be during construction or a permanent solution and then we're asking that it be clarified and this is the temporary we we put in the word temporary just so that we can clarify ourselves that is um an alternative surface look so we're in Environmental Protection right so isn't this this would be kind of weird if it's talking about something permanent yeah yeah and I think the title of that section talks about is during construction go to the top no go to the very top right go go up um it says purpose of the section is to prohibit the destruction of natural vegetation and the changing of natural grades and drainage problems until a development order or development permit has been approved so it's it's really temporary until so if you go back down um I think what they're really talking about is temporary stabilization right yeah so we put the word temporary in there just so that we know and but but what I'm saying is is if you make that the title and I don't know we've got our engineer down at the end over there uh temporary stabilization is I guess what if you just call it that it might clear up that confusion right oh instead of alternative surfaces uh temporary stabilization in traffic areas so you know where you're not above grade you can do this stuff and and I think that gets rid of the confusion because that's what it's for Alexis are you all okay with that oh I'm sorry I I think Deborah is saying they're a little bewildered by this because it looks like some kind of thing about driveway design or some you know not environmental thing is that what you're saying or that it can be remain permanent permanent yeah so so so right here she suggested temporary so I think temporary St stabilization of traffic areas makes it clear it's not like this permanent you can use gravel or whatever in these spots it's just during construction that's fine I mean the only I think the alternative alternative is used just because there's other methods but you're same goal so yeah I think that's fine so what would it be temporary stabilization in traffic areas to to make it clear it's that's all it's for well it says the details be approved by order of the issuing so should that they'll have some date you know if the I'm going to guess the order or the permit will have some length of time or some action that says it's only good a suggestion so again whenever something really is an esm issue I think this should be really approved by public works you know what's what surface is acceptable for temporary stabilization is not really a development services call I would think it's a public I don't know if you've got stuff in the esm about this I can I can look well if you don't you know then so what is the line of authority is it city engineer Public Works director somebody should approve it but I think it should be some guideline in the L thec should well right but what I'm saying is it needs to be approved by somebody but you really need a development order well yeah I mean I was about to point to that because it says at the end of it approved by development order or permitting Authority because it could be in a different jurisdiction so is is a Construction level two permit issued by public works construction level two is issued by development services but public works for for the stabil you routinely you're going to get their input for that okay I think it's fine but let me try to understand this is before a development order is issued because in the in the title it it was interim so is this for a um cgt where do we my understanding of this this particular subsection is that it's for construction material construction material won't be construction is not permitted unless you get a permit and so that permit is through development order typically it says yeah well it says development order or permit issuing authority which if we were to do a development order or a site type two either one would be a development order or a permit okay so the the title that we had before that said it was prior to a development order be issued whatever well it could be after and and I don't know what they did but you know when when they started on that chelonian project the the sand was such that the big trucks doing demolition were stuck and had to be pulled out the first thing they did was lay down big metal plates right and then they came in and dumped gravel and I think that's just something I'm sure that Ben was out there whoever from Public Works saying here's what you can and can't do so it might not be in your development order but I think to what Harris is saying is the permit issuing authority is out there doing site inspection saying what they can and can't do right because it was a pretty big mess yeah I don't know if it still is but it was it's your walking zone right yeah it looks good looks better much better it's much better okay so we changed it to use of temporary stabilization all right everybody's okay with that yes okay page five okay so C required so conservation number one during construction so we added in um the language it says the contractor shall follow standard practices or details specifically included in and then we remove the word his because it could be her so we put in there the environmental re resource permanent and applicable storm water pollution prevention plan to prevent and those are the things that we added to prevent erosion and the depositing of soils off the construction site these practices shall include the prot protection of bare soils from wind forces and storm water so is the board okay with that language I think so you have any com agree okay great page [Music] seven um contractor license required for contractor obtaining permits and it says any person or entity engaged in the business of tree removal or pruning shall be licensed by the city on an annual basis um licenses may be obtained from the city by completing an application and paying the required license fee the license application shall contain at a minimum the name address and telephone number of the contractor and a copy of the contractor's occupational license and proof of liability and workers compensation and insurance it shall be unlawful for any person or entity to engage in the business of tree removal or pruning within the city of Vito without a license shall also be unlawful for any such person or entity to fail to obtain a permit on behalf of the property owner so we were checking with our building department to see see if there is a specific license that you need to have um to be a contractor in Ido and um also um if an occupational or business tax receipt is required a business tax receipt is required and I believe they do have to register their license with the building department um as a contractor is this existing language that is existing language is is is there somewhere I'm just curious you know can someone cut their own tree down um you have to get a permit but yes as a property owner you can okay but does it have to say that or is that just kind of a standard thing like you don't need so so like residential you could build your own house but you can't build a commercial building right so this is for a person or entity engaged in the business of treade removal okay contractor obain permit right okay is this really like I like should it be here in environmental preservation or is this Licensing in business I mean I just seems a weird spot for this whole basically to say contractor should be licensed to work in the city that's really this whole thing says that basically that well it's specifically about tree the tree removal aspect of it so and and it this section talks about clearing G in tree removal in particular so that's that's that's why it's tied but just looking at the environmental preservation I okay so so it gets perhaps a little confusing in just your interpretation so someone who does mass grading doesn't have they're not like a licensed tree removal person they go in with heavy equipment and knock them all down that's that's a different license I mean do you interpret that as someone who's in the business business of tree removal and pruning we have these tree companies and they do go out and they remove different trees right right for what I'm saying the great the mass grading companies are different I think they would be different yeah that size contract yeah well I understand but removing trees they're removing trees and the first line says if they're in the process removing tree removal or pruning shall be so so that's I think to Steven's Point this is a l licensing issue yeah don't you have code of ordinances about licenses and stuff but Les but that because that may not need to be here you're you're absolutely I agree yeah I agree so let's just make sure it's covered somewhere else and the code of if it is addressed somewhere else in the LIC remove that then fine we can remove okay number six we talk about Champion trees um and our comment is that we need a definition for Champion trees and it says not withstanding any other provision of the section Champion trees shall not be removed except for extraordinary circumstances and hardships removal of champion trees shall be required shall require city council approval um so we're telling kimle horn that we need a definition for Champion trees is that yeah it's already there and no change so that's okay com goat trees okay and then on page seven d tree designation and number one talks about trees that are Oak Pine and cypers species under 8 in or greater and dbh shall be retained or replaced per section e the comment is um Florida friendly also includes Maple hickories Magnolia Elms as as large trees with these trees fall into um the three categories listed here and then why limit the species and not refer to the Florida friendly so they they were very um limited with what trees they um specified in D so who added the language previously about the mix of species was that you guys or them what language previously in in the tree section there was the mix of species if you have more than 10 trees they includ okay so I agree with you to be consistent you you want whatever is a species that should be protected yeah so to what you're saying is anything on the Florida friendly plant list should be protected yes okay now some people accept pine trees do you accept them from the list because they're probably on Florida friendly there's isn't there a version of pine trees that's that is on the Florida friendly there's a version of well so so to some some localities look at pine trees as these kind of ugly sticks and don't don't try to protect them so I'm just asking I I don't know yeah I think I it it is on that list we can go to it I I'm sure they are I'm just saying some localities don't care about you taking pine trees out we do okay same fine there's a yeah there's a care Pine Pines are part of the Florida ecosystem I'm not arguing the point I'm just asking I like pine trees okay so is that a consensus to um not let limit it to the three yes and to add um the whatever whatever's on the floor even though Steven says I hate trees I like a wide variety of trees you hate a wide variety of trees no I like a wide variety funny I just don't want to pay for them that's all except in my own yard I'm always paying for them there you go I don't pay for them I just snip off them Keith never shrubs shrubs and trees okay let's go to page eight um number three Champion trees so um it says determination determination that a tree is a champion tree shall be made by the city council after a recommendation of the city tree board we deleted um after recommendation of the city tree board because there is not a tree board but it does say determination that a tree as a champion tree shall be made by the city council so you were asking for a definition right so if it's above a certain size why do you need the city council to say so I and that's another thing is um the designation of a champion tree should we take it to city council or not U so city council can make that deter mination or just so I think if you have a size thing right usually in places it's like I don't know 60inch caliber or something or 60inch dbh if you have a size thing it should be right automatic I think and if someone wants to destroy it that's when they should go to city council so to go to City Council to save a tree seems kind of weird to me personally I don't know if you agree I don't know what every un it's so what's the difference between what is a champion tree well it's so that that that's our question it's a tree that has some kind of value to the I it's historic I I had it wrong the herit you're thinking about Heritage trees Heritage trees 30 30 Ines that's not very big really yeah that anything um uh greater than 30 in in caliper that is considered a Heritage tree is Heritage tree and Champion tree different interchangeable they are different two different things two different things one is declared only today by city council I don't know if city council has ever declared any tree a champ so we have to do some research on that what's the Magic Tree in Twin Rivers do you know what I'm talking about I know about the one that occupies the whole lot right yeah there's a Magic Tree there's one so I don't know if that one is considered a a champion tree I don't know if it was declared because only Council as the code is written can um declare a it's the one unbuilt lot right or is it side is it in Riverside it's in one of those I don't know which one but that has that the lot was never built and was given to the city because of of the this huge tree yeah I yeah why why so so definition why are we yeah bothering with it unless there's well the other thing it has to be a healthy tree right because if you can have a large you know Tree in caliper but it's if it's diseased whatever then we would not go you know around protecting it so if we again it doesn't say we've used Champion trees anywhere so if we get just wipe that whole SE out what would that do nothing well in a way it REM it removes the opportunity to declare some special value to any tree in the city that you know that was part of our questioning when we were having internal discussion and so one of our recommendations was to double the tree Replacements to make it kind of a sweeter deal that to be able to designate and save this Champion tree that that would provide more but but but what is it is your question so what is the what is the Heritage trees that you said it's 30 what do you get for Heritage trees Heritage trees are anything about 30 so 30 in is really not that big when it comes to trees well the only thing for for Heritage tree is that the replacement schedule is different is inch by inch so it's not protected you can remove it but the replacement is not because we have the schedule that from oh I got you right so it's not te is just how we calculate right above a certain caliper then it's inch by inch inch that you have to to replace and Champion trees are the ones that we want protect I mean you can take the word Champion that thing and it's be like city council at anytime can determine any tree is you know means more to the to the city than anything on Earth and you get double point I mean that's kind of what that says in in many words is all you're saying is the city council can at any time declare any tree very important to the city and meaningful and give you double credit for it that seems kind of weird so we have to to think about you know first of all how to define a champion I would first say if it's ever been ever been for Champion trees but it doesn't say anything like that up there I'm not so we need to do some research on that one to come back so if there's an actual way to do this yeah then fine ref then let's do it if if you know it let's let's give it to the staff and talk about it yeah if there's a champion tree thing out there then they should integrate that in somehow otherwise some discussion needs to be had why it's here and right if it's ever been utilized before because I'll sit there going uh the tree outside of live o reserve that fronts live o reserve is pretty cool tree I would hate to see that come down so but yeah I don't know that it's a champion tree anyway shaper so the way that is here is the property owner May request um or the designation from time to time what' you say C had the city's kind of suggesting yeah that's it and then B it's a property owner May request and it it gives them a way to do that they'll have to get a landscape architect um so we'll do some more research into this to see if it's ever been designated since I've been here I don't remember ever and unless this isn't about preserving the tree it's about giving them double credit again I think it would also be helpful to add a champion tree to the definition so everybody would know what it is I would say the name of it is a champion tree seems like something you would save not we'll give you double credit if you do take it down you have to you know provide double no to maintain you get credit I mean to maintain to maintain you get double credit so it's an encouragement to maintain well because you're thinking about brly I'm thinking about brly my head's are already till tomorrow let's do research can you highlight the championship that's funny i' never heard that one trees come okay so then we get to page eight this is tree replacement um our comment this is um tree replacement where it says all large trees that are removed or destroyed and subject to replacement by the section shall be replaced by species of tree listed in the latest edition of the Florida friendly Landscaping uh plant guide so our comments to this is that we need a graphic to explain this is they um it's always helpful to have graphics and then Kem Hornet is also deleting um some of these tables which is the table that gives you the number so why yeah so they're deleting the tables and we're not quite sure why so that's our question why are they deleting um and then there's there's also a comment that removing table 12.1 makes the number required number of required placement trees of moving Target so we want to make sure that everyone understands what's going to be required if they do remove the trees what's going to be required so so do you want me to expand on what I'm saying there your cover yeah so so very strangely they talk about the number of trees but then they talk about the number of inches so you could read that that well you only required this many trees but you Otis that many inches so someone's out there planting like 30 inch trees or some weird thing so I think you guys had a chart that made some sense that was stepped with this size tree this many inches is this many replacement this many so getting doing this inches I don't think you want to start counting inches do you well I actually we actually count inches when comes to Heritage trees right and so for there's four there's five categories the way the current code standards are and the four of them it says if you're a 8 in to 12 in you're count as one the next category two three four and then the others count as inches and so it doesn't bother me as far as counting them by inches um per se but I don't necessarily think that they they got it right so it's a it's a wildly increased requirement if it's inches and and I think the way it is now you want to find a way to save a Heritage tree because the hit is harder and you should not delete that you know the larger tree is the one you want to save if it's in good shape for for sure at the next time we meet we're preparing a PowerPoint that's going to outline staff's new position or you know or an alternative proposal that has a more proportionate share to kind of weight the Heritage tree more than the other trees and uh but in my personal view I I would rather I want to count trees one way either count them as categories and then as a and then count as a tree or count as inches and then do that well so so Heritage you can accomplish the same thing by just the number of trees the way you calculate the number of trees it's it's you don't have to do it by inches you can have the same net effect by counting the number of trees my my concern is they're telling you what's required to replant is is trees but you're measuring them in inches and it doesn't make a whole bunch of sense do do you understand what I'm saying well I'm not now I'm not sure what you're saying okay so they didn't change what you're required to replant but they're changing the the replacement inches so you're planting trees but you're replacing inches that doesn't make sense yeah it needs it needs to it needs to be one the result needs to be trees and if you change this to inches it's a huge variation from the current Table in the opposite direction that that I think makes sense and I don't know that they understand that math when you start adding up these inches because they're saying inch for inch but but you're replacing trees and trees are required to be what is it two and a half so it it doesn't really make logical sense to me yeah we like I said we have an alternative proposal that we'll present um but we so cre you like me to defer my recommendations to Al proposal and right now we we have a crazy spreadsheet that has this all kind of laid out but I want to synthesize that and make it a little bit more simplistic as opposed to diving into an Excel spreadsheet with a bunch of calculations behind it Dave what they are suggesting here is good it clarifies and simplifies the requirement so it was before from 8 8 Ines to 18 you were having required to have two trees no now this is only one that's not correct well really look at look at the title of the column it's inches yeah yeah but look 8 in up to 18 was one tree no no no no before was one tree it was one threee now it's inches do you understand yeah but it is up to 18 inches no you're not you're not you're not the thing is that in a way you will require more right now because before we were saying between 8 and 18 it's one so if you have one tree at 2 and a half caliber now we're going to say between 8 and 18 is 1 to one in so you have to calculate Tre how many trees we should rise this yes do you understand my point now I do okay but that did not really say that it says it's saying 8 by 28 in in in this side here is ratio of required inch replacement it's going one to one okay the others are it it increases the ratio so to me increas the the stepped methodology well increase the rati another debate but the stepped methodology encourages the saving of larger trees which makes perfect sense where it used to be two and a half inches of tree that's a huge difference so they we give a pass in a way right with these bundles and they are they are counting every inch of tree ex yeah that's kind of nuts adding more complexity to it you should make it more more simple right we accounting for more yeah we're accounting for more but but the waiting program I think is important to do so if you have inches that are of a lower lower ciper trees they will count less as opposed to what the Heritage tree would count so we're counting everything but we're waiting how we count it but but the actual requirement which I'm suggesting and it comes down to how the limit is done so so now if people don't do this when you've got a large number of trees and invariably there's reasons you can't protect this for grading for for drainage for whatever reason it's hard to save these trees and even when you try to pretend to like Evans Square it doesn't work they ended up gone so now you end up with the calculation says okay you required 600 trees but the maximum is 2 50 or whatever so changing it to inches just creates a lot more math that gets canceled out at the end anyway well the math is already in the table anyway we require the the tree type the inch caliper on the plan set and so the the math is already there it just gets done differently right but what I'm saying is you're taking the base requirement that was for a 12inch tree two and a half inches and making it 12 so you're like five times the prior requirement that's not the right direction to go yeah I'm not saying that I support the way that they wrote it in in the code right now what what I am saying is that counting it inch for inch is not necessarily an not inherently a Bad Thing nor extra work but getting it right in proportionality and making sure that we're not outweighing the concerns that we're trying to Levy here by doing tree preservation is what we're out up to so let me ask you a stupid question because this comes up a lot okay and I haven't had you guys ask me this one yet but I'm just going to throw it out there so you want the tree survey at the beginning of the process right because you're you're submitting this tree replacement requirement analysis at the beginning of the process of of a plan approval trees grow that's right so so uh here you have a situation when you have a range you're really not changing the situation on the ground people can't afford to go measure their trees twice it's actually very very expensive to go measure your trees and so to to me the the ranges set up a situation that makes sense because you're not really going to have that big of a difference on the ground maybe a few trees jumped from one category to another but not every tree changed well but I'm not sure I understand so you submit the tree survey at the beginning of the project and that's where it Li I understand but I'm just saying you know life isn't static and sometimes these projects take a long time and start and stop and and I'm just saying counting every inch I'll wait and see what your chart is and what the effect is so let me ask you here on the 30 inch above 30 each what is the what is the proposal three to one yeah so so we are way going Way Beyond what we require today right so you're already at one to one and you're one to one for the 30 and we give the passes for the the other ones right yeah so they already for the for the 18 between 18 and 30 they already doubling what is the standard today right because we start with one one to one at the 30 above so I'm saying you're going to five to six times the present requirement but the way this chart is written Harris is saying I'm not suggesting if we do inches it's this chart right yes so so until we see what Harris wants to present we don't know what's being proposed well well we and we could present all three versions we could do the the code what they're Pro what they're proposing what we're proposing I'm saying if I'm opposed to what they're proposing I haven't seen what you're proposing I'm willing to sit back and wait and see I think what we had is good we should keep it up to 8 in one replacement one three that's it from 8 to from 8 to 18 what we had before 12 to 18 12 to 18 was two 12 to 18 two 18 up to 33 that is excellent we lived with it for so many years everyone is happy with if we change it we'll create more problems we should just keep it the way it is that's my recommendation good e let's give Harris a chance to present yeah he's already they're already getting they're counting the trees anyway I mean currently they're counting the caliber they're doing all the work up front it's being done so let's see if there could be let's see if there's a way that could work better that really incorporates that versus just kind of saying yeah that we did all this work but we really not so so Harris and his staff have to do this counting and Analysis okay so I'm just saying let's hear him out he wants to present this later he's not ready let's see what he's got to say pres today no no an overview of what he's G to propose I I could do the overview now if you want yeah that would be great I I mean you guys said at the next presentation or you want to do it now not right now but just just an overview of how we you know kind of how we do the calculations so tree mitigation calculation it's fairly simple um from the standpoint of what the equation is is tree preserves Min tree trees removed equal replacement trees unless you're a Redevelopment project in which replacement trees are required for any tree removed um there is a app currently and that is two times the lot tree requirement so I created a an example scenario here let's say you had 25 trees that are preserved 100 that are removed at 75 Replacements but the required lot trees is 30 you have a 2 acre lot so that's 30 time 2 that's 60 trees as your cap and so you would be required to replace 60 trees and so that's the basics of how the tree replacement or tree mitigation calculation is conducted um and so there's two methods for for compensation or to provide the replacement tree either you can compensate by providing it on the the site plan or you can pay into the tree bank and right now the current fee is $250 we're planning on changing that with the code yeah we are changing it it's increasing right um and so one of the ways to to provide replacement trees so a lot of times with these sites it's difficult to even fit the lot required trees and so one of the things that the code allows for is for uh trees to of increased caliper to count for an increased amount of trees and so let's say you have a buffer tree that you're providing at 2 and a half inch caliper but if you up it to four then it counts as one buffer tree and then it can count as a replacement tree and so we've done that on a regular basis to have increased caliper on the plan and so some of the proposed changes to the code that were that were uh proposing are to count all preserved and removed trees by inches proportionate share heavily weight the Heritage and Champion trees reduce schedule rows from 5 to three which they've already done to some degree uh and then remove or revise the maximum cap and so the current schedule which was in the code before we talked about it before in fact Sam was kind of going through the motions uh where you have five categories it graduates from one two 3 four five and then the final category is Heritage or Champion which is inch by inch which you divide by two and a half to get the tree count for Replacements uh this is a preliminary discussion and like I said we're going to come back with some actual numbers and example projects to be able to back this up uh but one way of doing this is to have 8 to 18 in count for 10% so you have inch by inch requirement 10% share 20% share 50% share so what what is that mean so you multiply that number by by the uh by that ratio and then that's how how much would be weighted and then we calculate out two and a half two and a half we divide that by two and a half I'll I'll provide the calculation it'll be easier when I get it all so so right now so so just for example um right now we're up to 12 and that's a two and a half today right I think that that was my point you're up to 12 well that's what it is today 12 in get you so 4.8 trees call call it five trees just for the sake of discussion so I I guess I don't understand where you're going so right now 18 in is two trees right okay so 18 divided by you know so that's five inches a tree he's saying 10% so that' be effectively one point uh 18 in would be 1.8 inches of tree so you calculate the you calculate the inches you you just count 10% and half% 2% 2.5 of the total inches yeah 10 10% % of where so you got the total inches for all so let's say you have two 8 in trees right you only you only replace so that's 1.6 in yeah 10 10% of that is counting towards the replacement count and then from the next category 20% no no no this this is preserved this is not removed where's removed you're saying this is what's counted toward your stuff what where's the remove oh this is preserved so you count 10% the Pres there's there's obviously an error in the uh in the wording here it's supposed to be preserved and removed so they're the same right but the inches your your preservation are removed that gets the calculation goes there and then after that is the 10% so whatever if you have a balance where you're removed outweighs the preserved then it's 10% of that which would count towards the replacement so can we take an actual project that you've approved that's that's the plan and and apply the math so we see what it does on an actual project yeah let me try to understand this this proposal because the consultant is counting inch by inch right everything counts you're counting 10% yeah we're waiting it out yeah he's giv more importance to the Heritage trees versus inch right now it's all inch by inch and it's weighted at the end but even even the heritage T is only 50% it's not in by in by in right now in by are they still doing a cap but they have a cap they still yeah there's a cap still there's still yeah there's a cap of 60 tree you know whatever that cap came so that that's part of the so I I'll just kind of reveal some of the stuff behind the curtain so we looked at Mitchell hamic commercial development and then we looked at all in Avenue town homes and both the commercial development the wetland trees were not touched but all the other trees were were clearcut and the same thing happened all in Avenue Town Homes although all in Avenue Town Homes had a lot more Heritage trees on site and so but there's a there's quite a disparity as far as if you if you consider the way that's counted currently in the code compared to what we're talking about with this proportion so this proposal doesn't have a cap Curr currently not understand Harris just to to people don't like the fee today it creates a lot of friction okay it creates a lot of friction at the council level the council level doesn't like the imposition of these big fees not all of them agree on that it's it varies okay so any suggestion what and I'm actually here saying I think the fees are kind of outrageous and a suggestion that they should be more that is a oh we're letting you develop just write us this big check it's just not right so any anything in that direction I think makes no sense so right now the calculation on a heavily wooded site you know and I don't know the numbers it might say 600 but we're capped at 400 whatever whatever it is so to make that number much bigger I mean you you just told for example Eric alerson write me a $70,000 check to build your project you're not very happy no okay so to suggest that that number should somehow be higher kind of blows me away so you're going to discover that our standards today are pretty good if you compare to other cities our standards not comparing other cities Winter Springs the solution I had when I had a project to do in Winter Springs their code says come ask us nicely at City commission for Relief and for years yeah we don't do that that's what it says okay so for years people would go I can't pay you $100,000 to build my little project and they'd say okay we'll do X well the present City council's position is we're not even going to let you come ask so the end result is people go down the road they say I'm ready to go ask and I had this situation and basically went to a site with no trees in Winter Springs for for my client I can't pay you $100,000 to or whatever it was it was psychotically more than that was like 300,000 yeah I I don't think so staff's objective Is Not to cause maximum pain to the developer over the tree removal but the way the code currently is the maximum cap kind of cushions out any tree preservation and we have a propensity of developers who go and clearcut and I understand why the clearcut for for reasons that you've kind of voiced already in the meeting it's difficult to save trees especially you even when you try to save trees on site uh it's you know it's kind of a betting game because they can die you know based off of some type of clearing grading issue or some other issue for that matter but we want to promote the salvation of some of these Heritage trees in a higher rate than is currently going on and I can there's at least five or six projects I've been involved with in my less than three years of being here at the city where they've cleared cut the site and sometimes you absolutely have no option whatsoever you be creating and all these things but that's not okay if you've got this expensive project and you'll be told write a huge check because we don't like that you clearcut it no no but the thing is that so if we show the numbers they remove 400 trees 500 trees and they account for for 100 so we are letting you know hundreds of trees go away they're not your trees like I said no but I know we know that it destroyed trees we we know they're not our trees we know that that it development destroy trees but we have to balance out the environment no you don't actually and can I just can I can I can I cut the Amazon can I cut the Amazon can you cut what the Amazon the Amazon well people are no but can we it's considered a lung of the world should we cat the Amazon so so people is also it's not it's not the property of balance I'm just saying it's finding the balance we have a sustainability you know I'm saying beyond the fair balance today and you're saying well we are trying to find the balance it doesn't seem to be very expensive Harris is still working on it so we're we're like we're going down to you know he's he's trying to work on a system it's probably I'm going to say it looks like three quarters of the way in that he's trying to get a new system up that balances out things that we'll see where we're at why are we well well the other part of it is is that in the discussion I think because of the proportional approach we can play we can Tink around with the percentages and we tin around with some of the the metrics to kind of get it in a more comfortable place so so Harris let me ask this question and I'm trying to keep an open mind here so your method is to find a way let let me see if I get this straight to make it more painful the bigger the tree right to to get the encouragement of the saving of that bigger tree or another another way to say it is to encourage the salvation of those trees to to decrease the pain so one of the ways and I I get the cap sometimes cancels this out I get it okay one of the ways which they took out maybe not you was the same kind of credit for the save tree and they took it out completely you got no credit for saving trees it's it's gone in in what consult yes which I was looking at that going why would you do that so you know chelonian was one circumstance where here's an Upland buffer let's save the trees because we can't okay here's this buffer on the other side of the Wetland you know we don't have to do development there let's save the trees so they found ways to save those trees the other thing that comes into play is until you design your project you don't know where you can necessarily save trees and you you have to go back so when you survey you guys have the 8 inch tree I think is what the number is Right show us the 8 inch trees I'm always telling people where you think your buffer is measure the two and a half inch trees and they think I'm crazy because it's expensive to survey the trees but if you didn't survey them you can't say you're getting credit for keeping them because they're not on the drawing you understand what I'm saying it's encouragement versus you know punishment it's make sure that the that the value that we're getting to save the tree is I'm going to say could be higher you get it it's mature it's already there yeah that kind of thing so it encourages the saving versus the punishment of the punishment going to be the punishment so you know yeah get the carrot on this one exactly but we give the credit so today we are I'm saying but it may be it may be tweaking that balance as we look at the same thing I I love the weights I think the weighted way is to do it you can weight you know that you can add more categories you can spread the categories out you can so I think weighted doing it weighted is a fantastic way to do it we'll wait to your my we'll wait to your results and see because like you said you can then go 48% 40 50% it really is going to be 40% it's going to be 60% those and I think what is going to be interesting when he does is showing the numbers well that's I think I'm willing to wait for your math I just don't like the verbal direction of people aren't paying enough who who there would be so much anticipation over math can I ask are we okay with that go ahead I'd like to just add to this discussion by saying I saw you giving credit for Save trees which is great so let's keep keep that in mind also you have have a cap of 60 replacements for in that example well there was an yeah there was an example no that there was an example of today he's not pro proposing a well he's not proposing in this inch by inch so because it's giving 10% you're you're basically until I see the results I don't care like again until you see the numbers you can't let's let's let Sim again you can you can tweak those 35% 65 whatever the number is that the cap will not be an issue at that point that's that's the idea I mean if we if after looking at the numbers we're like hey a cap you know a cap needs to be there or we revise the cap that we currently have um but hopefully we could do it more proportionate share and get tweak the numbers so that the ratio actually works out so the proportionality works just a couple things to to keep in mind so when you build a conventional subdivision even if it's small Lots even if it's town homes you've got streets streets have Street trees by by definition when you're next to single family those projects typically not always but have have buffers so you've got these linear areas where it makes sense to plant a lot of trees so it's easier on those types of projects to now satisfy the present way the codes interpreted and provide the trees when you do a commercial or multif family project which isn't constructed the same way it becomes way more challenging so the point I'm always trying to make and I just want everyone to understand this if you had a piece of property that for whatever reason Somebody went in and years ago farmed it and removed all the trees and it's got zero trees okay you've got this requirement that says 15 trees per acre is what you're required to plant and the premise of the current limit was initially and people could debate this till the end of time but initially was interpreted as someone shouldn't have to have no matter how much they take out more than double because what where the city was before that was tree for tree and they're sitting there going why doesn't anyone develop anything well because the cleared property is gone the wooded property is there and no can afford to so when you look at it this way I get people like trees I get people don't like clear cutting I understand all that but the reality is you're trying to develop at intensity developing at intensity takes Mass grading Mass grading takes wiping out the trees and our concentration should be how do we get an urban Forest of sufficient density to make sense the quality of the planting to me is infinitely more important than the quantity so for example we talked about well it would be better if you did a soil cell and put these things in along the streetcape in the right place well to to put a number on it yes you guys right now have you know Sam could get a tree for $80 but your typical commercial project where they're delivering planting irrigating all this stuff this 2 and in tree maybe $450 and when you go to the 4in tree the difference is more than $250 right now and I know you guys recognize that but if you say okay I'm going to plant this tree that's now going to grow to maturity because I'm spending $700 more on a soil cell you guys the approach I fear is quantity over sustainability and quality no I think you suppose Dave I mean we may be we may be needing to improve the the quality to assure the quality because the thing is that we um um count on a good landscape architect behind the plans and I think we have counted on those now I think we need the code needs to give more guidance because reality show that some projects did not pay attention to the type of tree you know the distance whatever so I acknowledge the cap makes them perhaps I think in your view not care I have a cap who cares right but sometimes it's not a I don't care and I will tell you I was given the privilege on on Stonehill if you could save the tree Dave saved the tree because there were some beautiful Oaks around in the back and I tried my darest until the landscape architect called me up and it was basically this inch thing if you you disturb the grade anywhere within 60 feet of the 60inch tree it's not going to survive it might be there for two or three years and then it's dead if you clearcut everything and start with the smaller trees the smaller trees acclimate faster and grow better so there's a limit to the 6 inch might not be better than the two and a half when you go really measure these things so I'm just saying let's concentrate when we're looking at this give people credit for planting in a more sustainable way also you know someone who plants with a soil cell and does a streetcape that's going to be infinitely better shouldn't be hammered with a big payment when they do that you understand what I'm saying I'm spending money doing this thing you're GNA take money because I have to be punished because the public doesn't like trees to be cut down there's only a certain pot of money yeah well that would be a consideration we could consider you know but um it's not a public only right I think it's our responsibility as planners to compensate to make sure that there is compensation the city is an attractive City also because of the tree canopy it has if we start cutting all the trees and not replacing them not having you know it's going to be a different City it's going to be a different environment so I would say that properly constructed projects with the right ratio of trees if you have a little patience can give you the urban Forest you're looking for that that's the goal what is the goal versus what is the punishment is to me the important thing yeah we we know in an over environment we are going to lose trees we so if we have a the downtown it's zero open space requirement right so it's going to be limited to you know the Furnishing Zone some you know some Street trees here some Island Trees here and there it's not going to be highly in heavily landscaped because it's going to be the density and intensity are greater so we have to have more imp Parks we have to have more areas that compensate that environment so when I hear compensate and I don't really want to get into yesterday's discussion I don't want to go there okay no it's compensate the enironment I understand the cap is not penalize what I'll say is this and I hear this all the time it's for the benefit of the city at large it's for the benefit of the environment at large I get that but the burden is being placed on the people that happen to have a wooded site versus a cleared site in an imbalance way with mitigation and mitigation call it mitigation all you want it's called you must be punished because you did this write me a check that's what it's called okay planting the bigger trees is the same thing as spending more money because it's spending more money and in some instances people make the conscious decision and it was done on chelonian and I worked with the landscape architect on that does it make s these spots and over here and over here and over here to plant the larger trees so sometimes that works did it make sense to save them around the wet land yes sometimes that works and you're right you know not withstanding Stephen always saying I hate trees I do my best to save them I just don't like the punishment on the other end when you can't that's all understood da I think would have more discussion on this at the next meeting so we're GNA we're going to see how yeah we're going to let Harris and Flo come back with their presentation at the next meeting um we're going to go ahead and end right now I'm finish with my presentation and then we'll pick up um the rest of Article 15 as well as Harrison Flo's presentation at the next meeting sounds good do we have any more and then we're also going to go over any comments or announcements we're also going to go over article 10 floodways flood planes and drainage okay uh future meetings as presented any change on these in this schedule so we ended up with just one in June right so there had been two there was there only two changes to this no no no the last time we were told two meetings now oh okay it's just they they're written here yeah that's that's correct all right that is the future meetings then if there is no more discussion we'll just adjin this meeting thank you all thank you thank you all not I'm gone take care of me take care of the meeting next time take care thanks Sam nice job thank you