HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Cecilia Kurland-Report from Lisa H. Hammer Horticultural Consultanti
LISA H. HAMMER, RCA
Horticultural Consultant
February 27, 2017
Mr. and Mrs. Nathan Kurland
3132 Day Avenue
Miami, FL 33133
RE: 3140 Day Avenue
Miami, Florida
Submitted into the public
record or it m(s) Vz,-
on lint City Clerk
RCA #333
ISA #SO-0758
P.O. Box 330203, Miami, FL 33233
Phone (305) 858-4667
Fax (305) 858-4237
Lisa (a. LisaHammerRCA.com
LisaHammerRCA.com
asaaAMEIICAN SOCIETY o/
CONSULTING AEEOEISTS
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kurland:
We met at your residence last Thursday, February 23, 2017, where we discussed your concerns about
a proposed development next door to you at 3140 Day Avenue.
BACKGROUND
There are plans to construct a two-story duplex with a rooftop terrace on the lot in question. A Notice
of Intended Decision was posted listing one tree proposed for removal, #4, a large strangler fig (Ficus
aurea) adjacent to your property, which is outside of the buildable area and you would like for it to
remain.
There are three large live oaks (Quercus virginiana), # 1, #9 and # 10, proposed to remain and you are
concerned about the potential impacts of construction on those trees.
You have appealed the Intended Decision and obtained the surveys, plans, arborist's report and other
documents related to this project. You asked that I assist by evaluating those plans and how they
might impact the trees.
OBSERVATIONS
Without authorization I did not enter the property. However, the trees were visible from outside the
fence. There is an arborist's report from Rudy Alemany, Certified Arborist #FL-257 that contains the
tree species, size, and condition data. In his report he addresses tree condition and provides
guidelines for tree protection and maintenance.
I ,ni, s\- ?O\ Ll.(\\o�1,COL\ )lt\14
Tree #1
Live oak tree #1 is located in the northwest corner
39", height of 50 feet, and canopy spread of 60 fee
below:
Submitted into the pub
record fqr iteip(s) Y L.. \1
on `� �17/ i 11 . City Clerk
of the lot. It reportedly has a trunk diameter of
t. The tree is proposed to remain and can be seen
This tree is in good general condition. It is shown to be in a corner where it will not be impacted by
construction, but there is a proposed paver driveway about 10 to 12 feet away from the trunk. This
tree's roots are higher than grade, having increased in girth over the years. If the installation of the
new drive%v1 r will re+uire rackor e cavation, si_ Meant root damage is likely to occur.
2
A few branches may need to be pruned to provide clearance on the side by the building, but it appears
that it will be minimal.
Submitted into the pub 'c
record fpr ite (s) Vt. \1
on `] It7 in . City Clerk
Tree #4
Tree #4 is a very tall strangler fig located very near and partly over your wood fence and is proposed
for removal. It may be co -owned. It is reportedly 24"DBH, 38' in height and 33' spread. I could not
see the trunk at breast height to determine its diameter, but I could see the top of the tree from Gifford
Lane and it is at least 50 feet in overall height.
This tree appears to be in good condition, but I could not see its basal trunk area. The plans show the
east wall of the duplex at five feet from the property line, with a rain drainfield in between the duplex
and the property line. If the tree was to remain, excavation for these activities would likely cause
extensive damage to this tree's roots, very close to its trunk. That much damage would cause general
tree stress and decline, allow for entry of pathogens, and make it prone to toppling. If it were to
topple, the most probable direction of fall would be away from the cut roots, toward the east, on top
3
of your house. This would pose a high level of risk to you, your family, and property. Adjacent
properties may also be within the strike zone.
If this tree is to remain, there should not be any excavation any closer to the tree trunk than 12 to 15
feet. The building footers would need to be above grade and the rain drainfield would need to be
relocated. Also, there could not be any significant utilities installations or other activities in this area
requiring extensive excavation.
Tree #9
Tree #9 is a live oak in the southwest corner. It's DBH is reported as 35", height of 56' and spread of
60'. It is proposed to remain and can be seen below:
Submitted into the pu is
record Or itein (s)
on `11,U 117 . City Clerk
This tree is in good general condition. As presented in the plans, there do not appear to be any
significant impacts to this tree, but if swimming pools or other structures are constructed in the rear
areas, this tree's roots will be severely impacted. Also, the crown would likely be pruned to facilitate
that construction and to remove branches from over the pools.
Tree #10
Live oak tree #10 is on the west side of the property, in the setback, and is proposed to remain. Its
DBH is reported as 24", height 54' and crown spread of 45'. It can be seen below. Note that is
crown is low, leans toward the north and east, and spreads over the existing house. The tree is in
good general condition.
Submitted into the pub
record f r ite s) y ,. f1
on `] 1 V7 . City Clerk
Another view of its crown is below, showin it over the existin house.
Submitted into the publjjif
record fpr ite (s) vL. f
on 7 PZ1 111 . City Clerk
The tree protection zone shown on the plans overlaps the building, and it appears that the building
could be as close as 7 feet from the tree trunk. This could cause significant tree stress and decline due
to root damage and at least half of its crown, possibly more, would need to be removed.
Tree #10 is at risk of severe root and crown damage if a two-story duplex with a rooftop terrace is
constructed as proposed.
Tree Protection
Mr. Alemany recommends fencing off the trees to remain during construction "... at a minimum
distance of 5' or 1' per 10" of caliper measured at DBH from the base of the tree, whichever is
greater." The tree protection zones shown on the plans show a 10-foot radius around each tree.
The City of Miami Tree Protection ordinance states in Sec. 17-7.(a) "...A protected area with a radius
of ten feet shall be maintained around trees to remain, unless a certified arborist otherwise determines
in writing that a smaller or larger protected area is acceptable for each tree, or an alternative tree
protection method is approved."
Environmental Resources plan reviewers have for the last several years required tree protection zones
to be equal to 8" radius per 1 "DBH for trees larger than 15"DBH.
If we compare the City's required tree protection zones to those proposed by Mr. Alemany, they are
as follows:
Tree # 1:
City Method:
Arborist's Method:
Tree #9:
City Method:
Arborist's Method:
Tree #10:
City Method:
Arborist's Method:
39" DBH x 8"=312"/12 = 26 feet radius
1'/10"DBH = 3.9 feet radius or 5 feet, which is greater
35"DBH x 8" = 280"/12 = 23.33 feet radius
1'/10"DBH = 3.5 feet radius or 5 feet, which is greater
24"DBH x 8" = 192"/12 = 16 feet radius
1'/10"DBH = 2.4 feet radius or 5 feet, which is greater
Clearly, there is a significant difference between the arborist's recommended tree protection zones
and those that City staff usually requires.
The plans show 10-foot radii, which is consistent with the code, but significantly smaller than what is
usually required using the 8" radius/1"DBH method.
SUMMARY
In summary, one tree, strangler fig #4, is proposed for removal, even though it is not in the buildable
area. You would like to retain it and have asked for the building to be re -designed to accommodate it.
This would require that no excavation take place for building footers, utilities, or rain drainfields
within 12 to 15 feet of its trunk.
Three live oak trees, # 1, #9, and # 10 are proposed to remain but the tree protection zones shown on
the plans are inadequate. Larger tree protection zones for roots are needed. Tree # 10 is at risk of
severe root damage and half or more of its crown would need to be removed to facilitate the proposed
building.
Thank you for calling on me to assist with this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions or additional needs for assistance.
Sincerely,
pen- # Ham.
Lisa H. Hammer, RCA
Horticultural Consultant
7
Submitted into the pui1ic
record fqr
on 71 Z- 1
City Clerk