The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubmittal-Wendy Francois-Powerpoint Presentation 2958 Bird AvenueSubmitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk 2958 Bird Avenue re: Appeal of HEPB Resolution Denying Appeal of Issuance of Intended Decision Regarding the Removal and Mitigation of Trees MIAMI CITY COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 2016 ITEM PZ. 22 1158-Submittal-Wendy Francois-Powerpoint Presentation 2958 Bird Avenue Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Property (Satellite View) ' a P A` Ir Coconut A've ifs �l A w-+rim. �� I, wVifry i,... -Trad_e•Avc r+rr14iattt, Ffanlgan's SeafoodII 1 t► R t k ud Ay `2458,D I Ave u"e Property (Street View -Bird Avenue) Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Property (Street View-Jackson/venue) r1+} . Street View - Apr 2015 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Original Site Conditions Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Original Site Conditions Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Proposed Project Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Appication of .After -the -Fact Tree Permit Intended Decision #1 App Timeline City withdraws Intei7cec1 Decision - A.ppeaI withdrawn �Fr Intended 42 Revised Landscape Plan — Less Trees Appeal 2 HEP Board Denies Appeal 09NOV16 17F' 1AY16 26h A 16 01-O4july, 6 1 t Appeal Claims: 1. Flans ne9d to be reJi sed_ 2. Mitigation plan includes toc many trees and a contribution shau d be made to the Citv's Tree Trust Fund_ Tie posted notice vola.tes Sec_ 17-4(d)- 2?._UL16 2'ry{" Appeal Claims: O5AUG16 O9 EP16 1_ Mitigation plan inclr.des toc: r- em erees and a contribution should be Trade to the itr's Tree Trust Fund_ 2. The posted notice °iola_es Sec. 17-4(d). 30SEP16 3rd Appeal Claims: 1. Plans need to be revised. 2. Mi i gaion plan includes too rnanv trees and a can_ributior shpulc be made to the City's Tree Trust =und_ 3_ The posted notice violates Sec_ 17-4(d)_ 4_ La-ge oak tree needs to De protected_ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk f 1st IntendedDecision oin Met with Mr. McMaster to understand reasons for appeal and address concerns: 1. Plans need to be revised. 2. Mitigation plan includes too many trees and a contribution should be made to the City's Tree Trust Fund. 3. The posted notice violates Sec. 17-4(d). Property Owner informed City of intent to revise and modify Landscape Plan to satisfy Mr. McMaster's concerns. Revised plan incorporating Mr. McMaster's comments submitted to City. City reviewed the plans and discussed with Mr. McMaster. Appeal withdrawn at request of City as it withdrew the 1st Intended Decision to reissue a revised version. New landscape plan proposing less "crowded," more balanced tree area approved and end Intended Decision issued July 29. 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Appication of .After -the -Fact Tree Permit Intended Decision #1 App Timeline City withdraws Intei7cec1 Decision - A.ppeaI withdrawn �Fr Intended 42 Revised Landscape Plan — Less Trees Appeal 2 HEP Board Denies Appeal 09NOV16 17F' 1AY16 26h A 16 01-O4july, 6 1 t Appeal Claims: 1. Flans ne9d to be reJi sed_ 2. Mitigation plan includes toc many trees and a contribution shau d be made to the Citv's Tree Trust Fund_ Tie posted notice vola.tes Sec_ 17-4(d)- 2?._UL16 2'ry{" Appeal Claims: O5AUG16 O9 EP16 1_ Mitigation plan inclr.des toc: r- em erees and a contribution should be Trade to the itr's Tree Trust Fund_ 2. The posted notice °iola_es Sec. 17-4(d). 30SEP16 3rd Appeal Claims: 1. Plans need to be revised. 2. Mi i gaion plan includes too rnanv trees and a can_ributior shpulc be made to the City's Tree Trust =und_ 3_ The posted notice violates Sec_ 17-4(d)_ 4_ La-ge oak tree needs to De protected_ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 °""'° "' "appeal of 2nd Intended Decision . Discussed with Mr. McMaster a roadmap to reach a solution before HEP Board meeting and informed the City of the ongoing discussions. Roadmap included evaluating Mr. McMaster's plan and redesigning to further address concerns. • New redesigned plan sent to Mr. McMaster for review (9/1). Minor feedback received (/). . Proposed meeting to try to reach an agreement before HEP Board hearing was declined by Mr. McMaster. ■ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Dialogue Between Appellee and Appellant Have been meeting with, emailing, and having phone conversations with Mr. McMaster since June. Revised plans are given to Appellant for comment and review. Appellant appeals Second Intended Decision despite having opportunity to give feedback. Property Owner has revised plans to reduce number of trees, will make contribution to City Tree Trust Fund, and obtain approval from Public Works to bow the sidewalk around the oak tree. Sent the revised plans for his comment and review. Made repeated attempts (6) to schedule a meeting. Dilo ue Between Appellee and Appellant Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk With respect to your concerns about the protection of the remaining oak tree on the Jackson side of the property, we have obtained the approval from Public Works to bow the sidewalk away from the tree_ Environmental Resources has given their support to the proposed plan that is being finalized by my architect for preliminary approval by PW_ The plan contains all details regarding the location and materials to be used in the construction of the driveways and walkways near the tree_ Once the plan is complete I will forward to you_ As I stated to you from day one, my intention has been and is to reach an agreement that will allow you to withdraw the appeal to the City's intended decision. From your comments on the newly proposed plan it appears that you would no have major objections. So the obvious question is whether this plan is acceptable to The Grove Tree -Man Trust. Given the time constrain, I would like to propose a meeting with you, the Environmental Resources Department and myself to try reach a final agreement on this case. You will notice that this new design reduces the number of trees as well as their size and includes a contribution to the City Tree Trust to fully meet the mitigation requirements. I sincerely hope that we will be able to use this plan as the basis for a final version that will satisfy The Grove Tree -Man Trust's concerns of a more sustainable mix of species and sizes on the site. I look forward to the Trust's comments. would very much appreciate if you could arrange for such a meeting for Wednesday or Thursday_ This would allow us to possibly submit the agreed landscaping plan to the City of Miami by Friday and that way give the Environmental Resources Department sufficient time to review and approve the plan before the hearing next week. From McMaster: In this case you and I met for more than an hour, reviewed your plans and walked the site four months ago. We have talked over the phone four or five times and emailed many times over the past four months. What is needed now are plans that can be reviewed by the Trust that have been approved by the city and are acceptable to you. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Appellant's Arguments on Appeal • (1) The mitigation requirement imposed by the City will not be effective because there will be too many trees in too small an area so the trees will not grow and thrive. • (2) The Notice posted at the property failed to properly describe trees and identify their location as required by Sec. 17-4(d) of the City of Miami Code. • (3) City must ensure survival of large oak tree. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Appellee's Response to Appellant's First Argument • The City's experienced staff has broad discretion in setting mitigation requirements. City staff working on this matter are certified arborists, municipal specialists, tree risk assessment qualified, and certified landscape inspectors. • The Grove is known for its dense foliage. • Expert Opinion conflicts with Appellant's own non - expert opinion. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Expert Witness: RudyAlemany- Arborist Certified Arborist, FL #0257 • Certified Landscape Contractor, FL # 147 • Degree: Landscape Technology, Horticulture, and Horticulture Science Professional Services: consulting, desi n, installation, Tree Surveys, Arborist Reports, Tree Protection Plans for the past 24 years Vice Chairman Commercial Urban Horticulture Advisory Committee ,UF7Miami Dade Coop Entension Center Economic Empowerment 2008-2010. Advisor Commercial Urban Horticulture Advisory Committee of the UFIMiami Dade Coop Extension Center Economic Empowerment 2001 — 2007 Advisor Miami Dade Community College - Landscape Technology Advisory Committee Education 2001 — 201 ❑ Advisor Miami -Dade Public School; Division of Applied Technology,Agriscience & Natural Resource Education Education 2002 - 20% Director Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association of Miami -Dade County (FNGA) Economic Empowerment 2000 - 2004 Secretary Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association of Miami -Dade County (FNGA) Economic Empowerment 2002 — 2003 Advisor Committee for the Commercial Ornamentals Program OF/Miami Dade Coop Entension Service Economic Empowerment 2003 - 2004 Member, Exhibitor, Vendor, Volunteer Miami -Dade County Youth Fair Education 2000 - Current Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Appellee's Response to Appellant's Second Argument "The posting shall provide a general ti description and location of the tree(s) on site to be removed or other action requiring the tree removal permit." 17- 4(d) Notice does provide a general description and location. Identifies the location (2958 Bird), the number of trees relative to each species, and provides reference to all relevant publically Appellant is seeking a specific description and location. Deiiianc:ts a reap snowing the exact location of each tree. Such level of detail is not necessary under the Code, may not be practical, and may be an administrative burden on the City. In any case, there was no harm to Appellant because Appellant knew of the plans. Date: 7/29/16 INTENDED DECISION PRIVATE PROPERTY I PUBLIC PROPERTY Application r uaib r. BD15-01571 1-9til & 16-166 Loco don: 2958 BIRD AV 1 he following decision has been approval and is rendered in accordance with Chapter 17 Tree Piotection of the City Code: Genera] Description: Prohibited Species I New Construction I After -The -Fact .proposed Tree(11 To Be Rctnoved & Local p; Seven (7) - Two (2) Live Oaks, five (5) Christmas Palms [renter Loth ,After The Fact Treefs) Removed & Location: Twenty -Six (26) - One (i) Combo -Limbo, Twenty -Five (25) Alexander Palms ROW Tree(al To Be Removed & Location! Four (4) - One (l) Queen Palm. One (1) Sabel Palm, ()Ile (I) Live Oak, Onc (1) rviahugdnr Tutal Number of Replacement Trees: Sixty Eight (68) — Fifty (50) Palms, and Eight (1 S) Hardwoods All supporting demount al ion and plans providing aAlmond descriptbn and Jo call On of I1ta trea(s1 nn site to bo rcmo,md or blunt action requiring the ha tanovnl retini4 le available for inapeslion at the Depatmad of ?haling r amingraavimnmental Reanumes Division, upon request. Thse duwmerlls Includelad are not!ivand in: Tree Disposition Plan; Wee Survey; MO Iluu and Replacement Plan Foran appointment, pleare call xF (30$)416-1531- This Intended Decision may ho a piowled lay Sling a written notice of appeal to the presalyation afncor within ton (10) calendar days afterIle date of the intended decision. Tito eodko efappoal shall inolude the decialcn lima and the roasane or snoods for tlx appeal along with payment of uny apirikoble , Wrinou notices obeli be aubniued a/ 444 8W 2nd Avenue, 3rd flaw, lrl'w�m{, Florida 33120 in aeeordaico Aida Attioto 17.8 of the The IN -Median Ordinance. Appeals must be t-eceired by: 818116 1 an n l.t W/r+r , being duly sworn demos old tayn: ^�` j Ism a Idly Agee, employed by or acting on behalf of Um City of Rimini, On Roa�7yt day of iJ 3, 20/1 I pooled a copy of this Inbmrdud Decision. Swore to(subncrFbud bo&rrc me this 9433y of &patine of Afl]ant My commission Expiras8` 5 DetivInoo1 aIPlanning and2ienotf nnvirowumm l liken AA.d e w ev d--•..•- a^. Rrr o. oOo0 dlf ldfxlr ;.•.I•,.�•..••.ot lILaWini��arinw rmi OHAterge tolftlg s galley ru0lle . 61a1a or Fonts Committing 4 Fr 964E 1e ' Mc Comm tepefes WI 26. 202A Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Appellee's Response to Appellant's Third Argument Appellant argues in its appeal that the plans fail to protect the Oak Tree on site, and that the plans should be revised to do so. Expert opinion is that the plans do protect the oak tree. AND appellee has gone to great lengths to accommodate appellant's concerns, including by working with public works to receive approval to bow the sidewalk to protect the tree. ■ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk Current Condition Proposed Project Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.22 on 10/27/2016. City Clerk DATE: 5/17/16 ,IIHY 11"" 1: 7 0 it INTENDED DECISION Application Number: BD15015711001 PRIVATE PROPERTY Location: 295E BIRD AVE The following decision has been approved and is rendered in accordance with Chapter 17 Tree Protection of the City Code: Reason for Removal/Relocation/Pruning: AFTER -THE -FACT I NEW CONSTRUCTION Trees to be removed : 37 (6 PALMS , 4 HARDWOODS, 2 PROHIBITED SPECIES) (25 PALMS AMR. THE FACT) Trees to be trimmed: 0 Trees to be relocated: 0 Number of replacement trees: 50 (iA PALMS, 30 HARDWOODS) All otheraipparting documenmtipn and mfprmatipn regordingtild3 ifecition SUGh ast TM Disposition Plan; Tree Survey; Site Plan and Replacement Plan om be obtained at the Deportment of Planning & Zoning / Environmental Resources Division. This Intended Decision may be appealed by 51ing a written notice of appeal to the preservation otiicer within ten (10) calendar days atter the date of the intended decision. The notice of appeal shall include the decision appealed from end Mormons or grounds for the appeal along with payment of any applicable fees. Written notices shall be submitted at 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd floor, Miami, Florida 33130, in accordance with Article 17.8 of the Tree Protection Ordinance Appeals must be received by: 5/26/16 I, DErlhil Rene e 1Af' ft,being duly sworn deposes and says: I am a City Agent, employed by or acting on behalf of the City ofMiami. On the ` day of r' li Lj 2O14 1 posted a copy of the Intended Decision. Swor to and subscrib before me this l‘day o to 1 Signature of Atliant 20 kc 5IiANt4 N MILLS I- lii: n Notary Public - State of Dodds 0ommlealoe # Fr 964514 My Comm. Expires Fah 21, 2020 My commission Expires: -Q'^pt 5 —90 Notary Public 511Ml atrge---- -- bcrrrtmcut of Planneug and Zo ,i g% goyim mental lteaouroTs A+Si S.W. 2'"Avenue, 8' Hoor /Miens, Florida 88I30 / raw) 4134400/ FnvirommilaiRregrniamiro .gran Date: 7/29/16 INTENDED DECISION PRIVATE PROPERTY I PUBLIC PROPERTY Application Number: BD15.015711-061& 16-166 Location; 2958 BIRD AV The following decision has been approved and is rendered in accordance with Chapter 17 Tree Protection of the City Code: General Description: Prohibited Species I New Construction I After -The -Fact Proposed Tree(s) To Be Removed & Location: Seven (7) - Two (2) Live Oaks, Five (5) Christmas Palms [Center Lot] After The Fact Tree(s) Removed & Location: Twenty -Six (26) - One (1) Gumbo -Limbo, Twenty -Five (25) Alexander Palms ROW Treets) To Be Removed & Location: Four (4) - One (1) Queen Palm, One (1) Saba! Palm, One (1) Live Oak, One (1) Mahogany Total Number of Replacement Trees: Sixty Eight (68) —Fifty (50) Palms„ and Eight (1 g) Hardwoods All supporting documentation and plans providing a general description and location of the tree(s) on site to be removed or othe actiaa requiring the tree removal permit i& available for inspection at the Dctaurtment of Planning & Zoning/Environmental Resources Division, upon request These documents include but are not limited to; free Disposition Plan; Tree Survey; Site Plan and Replacement Plan, For enappointment, please call at (305i 416-1551. This intended Decision may be appealed by filing a written notice of appeal to the preservation officer within tat (15) calendar days afierthe dateofthe intended decision. The nolice of appeal shall include the decision appealed from and the reasons or grounds for the appeal along with payment of any applicable revs. Written notices shall he submittal at 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 1rd floor, h{ ami, Plorida 33130, in accordance with Article 17.S of the Tree Protection Otdinante. Appeals must be received by: 818116 1, nAi1 Gr/+`4r being duly sworn deposes and says: I am a City Agent, employed by or acting on behalf of -the City of Mlanli. On tbec2f day of if M . 2 ' I posted a ropy of this Intended Recision, Swam to subscribed before me this y of k 20 ` 4211P. {r/r if+L Signature of?Bent 95 My commission Expires Dep rImuut of klumbig Raul2ciahg/ Eanirannwnil 11 444 S.W, 2r./ovnite, S" Door/Miami, Florida 38130/ lsarl 416140W Fa euoIaian aiResealiuu rmn SHANNON MIL48 Notary Public - S1tla oI HMO Cornmhsloe Y FF064S1; Ny Comm Expfrse Pel 25, 2020 Vlic , r e