| | | | | | | | | | 
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Item 7.
COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM | | | |
| | | | | | | | TO: Land Use and Sustainability Committee
|
| FROM: Alina T. Hudak, City Manager
|
| DATE: June 21, 2021
|
| |
| | | | | | | | | TITLE: | AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 126 OF THE MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE, ENTITLED “LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS,” BY AMENDING SECTION 126-6 THEREOF, ENTITLED “MINIMUM STANDARDS” TO INCLUDE THE PALMS IDENTIFIED IN APPENDIX F OF THE URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED STREET TREES, AND THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED PER LOT OR PER ACRE OF NET LOT AREA; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
| |
| | | | | | | | HISTORY:
| HISTORY
On March 17, 2021, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-31653, sponsored by Commissioner Steven Meiner, requiring palm removals be held in abeyance until legislation is considered regarding the preservation of palm landscapes iconic to Miami Beach’s culture and history. Additionally the intent of the resolution is to accommodate preservation concerns while minimizing any delays to City construction projects currently in process.
In addition to Resolution No. 2021-31653, and also at the request of Commissioner Meiner, the City Commission referred the proposed Ordinance pertaining to Chapter 126 of the City Code to the Land Use and Sustainability Committee (C4 AK). At the April 29, 2021 Land Use and Sustainability Committee, the item was deferred to the May 26, 2021 meeting with no discussion. On May 26, 2021 the item was deferred to the June 21, 2021 LUSC meeting, with no discussion.
BACKGROUND
On October 14th, 2020, the Urban Forestry Master Plan was approved unanimously by the City Commission, with the purpose of establishing a resilient tree canopy that will increase the canopy coverage from 17% to 22% over the next 20 years. On March 17, 2021 two separate referrals were made to City Commission Committees regarding a process for allowing palm trees, in certain, defined areas of the City, to count toward the minimum number of required street trees (as opposed to the currently required canopy trees), and to allow palm trees to be eligible for Heritage Tree designation (currently this designation is for canopy trees).
The proposed Ordinance amendment to Chapter 126 of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code, pertaining to Landscape Requirements, was referred to the Land Use and Sustainability Committee (LUSC). This Ordinance amendment would allow palms or trees identified in a new, proposed Appendix F of the Urban Forestry Master Plan to count towards the minimum number of required street trees established in Chapter 126 of the LDRs.
The proposed Ordinance amendment to Chapter 46, Article II of the City Code, pertaining to the care and maintenance of trees and plants, was referred to the Neighborhoods and Quality of Life Committee (NQLC). The proposed Ordinance amendment, which is scheduled to be discussed by the NQLC on May 19, 2021 and is attached for informational purposes, includes the following:
• Trees identified in the proposed Appendix F of the Urban Forestry Master Plan, including trees defined as palms, shall be permitted and encouraged to remain.
• Trees identified in the proposed Appendix F of the Urban Forestry Master Plan, including trees defined as palms, may be replaced with the same species palm or tree at the same location with no additional mitigation requirement.
• Palms identified in the proposed Appendix F of the Urban Forestry Master Plan would be eligible for heritage tree designation. Currently, only canopy trees are eligible for heritage tree designation.
For additional background, the following is a brief synopsis of the current unique roles of Chapter 46 and Chapter 126 of the City Code in the maintenance and enhancement of trees in the City:
Chapter 46, Division 2 – Tree Preservation and Protection
Pursuant to this Division of the City Code, the Urban Forestry Division administers the City’s tree preservation program, which includes the tree permitting program for the proposed removal or relocation of any palm or tree on public or private property. Mitigation for palm and tree canopy loss, either as part of a separate application or a development permit, is in the form of replacement canopy trees. A minimum of 50% of all replacement trees shall be native to South Florida. Palms may be included in landscape plans for a project, but they do not count for mitigation due to the low environmental benefits they provide. When the total number of trees required as replacement trees cannot be reasonably planted on the property or a suitable alternate location cannot be identified, a property owner can contribute to the City’s Tree Preservation Trust Fund as an alternative.
Chapter 126 – Landscape Requirements
The regulations set forth in Chapter 126 establish minimum landscape standards that enhance, improve and maintain the quality of the City’s landscape. This includes preventing the destruction of the City’s existing tree canopy on public and private property and promoting its expansion and diversification. Chapter 126 provides the following minimum street tree requirements:
• Street tree plantings shall be provided along all roadways at a maximum average spacing of 20 feet on center.
• Minimum tree height: 12 to 14 feet.
• Minimum palm height: 15 feet of clear or grey wood.
• Street tree diversification to prevent a monoculture and to prevent significant tree loss due to disease that may impact specific tree species.
Chapter 126 allows for palms to be planted in addition to the required number of street trees; palms are an important part of our Miami Beach identity. However, palms do not count towards the minimum number of required trees since canopy trees will help achieve overall urban forestry goals of shade, heat reduction, biodiversity, disease resistance and stormwater management |
|
| | | | | | | | ANALYSIS:
| The following is an analysis of the proposed amendments to Chapter 126 and Chapter 46, both of which were prepared by the City Attorney’s office at the request of the item sponsor. This includes the impacts to Chapters 46 and 126, as well as the proposal to create “Appendix F” to the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Chapter 126 of the LDR’s sets forth minimum requirements for street and canopy trees, both on private property and within public rights-of-way. Palm trees are not eligible to satisfy the minimum canopy tree requirements under Chapter 126. The proposal herein would create a new Appendix F in the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), outlining a list of approved historic landscaping features, and allow for palms identified in Appendix F to count toward the minimum canopy tree requirements. Under the proposal, the City Commission would be able to add properties and areas of the City to the proposed Appendix F by Resolution.
Under the existing provisions of Chapters 46 and 126, we are seeing a steady increase of both palm and tree populations citywide and the City will continue to meet UFMP requirements while still retaining and increasing palms within our landscape. While understanding of the intentions of the new proposal, the Administration has identified some areas of concern regarding the revisions proposed in Chapter 126, as well as in the companion referral to the NQLC pertaining to Chapter 46.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 46 and 126 will impact the ability of the City to meet the goal set in the UFMP to reach 22% canopy coverage by 2040. The proposed amendments will also restrict urban canopy diversity which will increase the City’s susceptibility to disease outbreaks and reduce the effectiveness of the City’s most important green infrastructure such as shade, heat reduction, air quality, biodiversity and stormwater management.
The following is a summary of specific areas of concern identified by the Administration:
Proposed Appendix F
In areas of the City to be identified in Appendix F (both now and in the future) the proposal does not specify the species of palms, nor the minimum height and spacing requirements. For example, if La Gorce Island were added to Appendix F in the future, Royal Palms, with minimum height and spacing requirements should also be included.
Chapter 126
Chapter 126-6 refers to minimum standards for palms as street trees. The proposed amendments would allow for palms identified in Appendix F to count towards the required number of street trees. It should be noted, however, that the proposed language in the draft Ordinance would still allow for street trees or palms of any species to be planted as street trees. Additionally, the proposed Ordinance does not contain any minimum standards for the palms identified in the proposed Appendix F, including species, height and greywood dimensions.
Chapter 126-6 also refers to minimum standards for private property. It is not recommended that area specific regulations identified in Appendix F, pertaining to palm trees, be applied to both public and private properties. For example, some of the private properties within an area identified in Appendix F may want to utilize canopy trees on their private property to satisfy the minimum canopy requirements of the Code, as opposed to palm trees. At a minimum it is recommended that this be clarified.
Chapter 46
With regard to the proposed amendments in Chapter 46, which are pending before the NQLC, the following is noted:
• The proposed amendments will affect the City’s ability to meet City Commission approved tree canopy goals of 22% canopy coverage by 2040. This goal is feasible if the recommendations outlined by the UFMP are followed.
• Mitigation in the form of canopy trees or trust fund contributions should be required for palms and trees in areas listed in the proposed Appendix F. As mitigation within the ROW may be challenging, the planting of trees in other areas of the City that are in need of canopy coverage is recommended.
• The proposed modification to Sec. 46-63, allowing palms in the ROW to be eligible for heritage tree designation, could result in more restrictive development conditions and potentially become problematic with neighborhood improvement projects. For instance, if palms within a given neighborhood experience disease or pests, it may be difficult to replant a different species that is less susceptible to such disease or pests. Also, the City Code requires an adjacent/abutting private property to maintain trees in the ROW and the designation of heritage tree status could create an issue if lethal diseases develop and spread within a specific area.
In summary, after careful consideration, the Administration does not recommend that the proposed amendments to Chapter 126, and by extension the proposed modifications to Chapter 46, move forward as presently drafted. In this regard a careful and balanced approach between palm and canopy trees exists under the current regulations. These regulations currently provide for a net increase of both palms and canopy trees for redevelopment projects. Over the last three years redevelopment projects have resulted in an 83% increase of palms on these sites; this trend is expected to continue.
If the goal is to create landscape standards for specific neighborhoods, the Administration recommends the creation of landscape overlays for specific neighborhoods to accomplish Commissioner Meiner’s goal without compromising the overarching goals of the UFMP, Chapter 46, and Chapter 126. These overlays could be considered on a case specific basis, taking into consideration the unique characteristics of a particular neighborhood, as well as existing and proposed species of trees and palms.
Finally, the Administration is concerned that the current moratorium on permits that remove palm trees, which is in effect until the attached legislation is considered by City Commission, per Resolution No. 2021-31653, may cause delays for City projects and private property permits if the moratorium continues. LTC #159-2021, which was issued on April 13, 2021, more specifically outlined Administration concerns for private and public projects.
|
|
| | | | | | | | CONCLUSION:
| | In view of the foregoing, the Administration does not recommend proceeding with the creation of an Appendix F to the Urban Forestry Master Plan for historic landscape features, nor the proposed amendments to Chapter 46 and 126 as presented. The proposed amendments will impact the ability of the City to meet the goal set in the UFMP to reach 22% canopy coverage by 2040 and further increase our palm population, which will increase the city’s susceptibility to disease outbreaks and reduce the effectiveness of the City’s most important green infrastructure. |
| | |
| | | | | | | | | Is this a "Residents Right to Know" item, pursuant to City Code Section 2-14? | | Does this item utilize G.O. Bond Funds? | | | No | | No | |
| | |
|