Urban Forestry Commission

Tree Commission Minutes Wednesday, May 20 15, 2015 v 7:30 - 9:30 pm Dogwood Room, City Hall Present: Larry Dorr, Bob Donaldson, Kate Reich, Christian Autor, and Dennis Szymanski Guest: Andrew Courtney, Barbara and John Tesner Absent: Kathleen Philpott-Costa, Kwafo Djan, Anna Wilson 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:30pm. 2. Approval of Minutes: April minutes were approved as amended. 3. Public Comments: Larry Dorr welcomed Andrew Courtney of Midvale Ave, and Barbara and John Tesner of Chestnut Street. Andrew and John are interested in serving as a Tree Commissioner and were present to observe. 4. Old Business  FC urban forestry program updates: tree inventory and web pages. Intern Kate Walker's work has resulted in 1100 street trees inventoried. This is approximately one-third of the total in FCC. Regarding the "app" for the inventory, Kate Reich reported that the public can enter data, but the data may only be migrated to the web by Staff.  Specimen Tree nominations. The Arborist has two nominations for submittal and review. 5. Current Business  Fees for Permits and Violations. Kate Reich presented a draft of updated fees related to urban forestry in City Code Section 15-37. On the question of Prune or Remove a tree on public property, there was agreement to grant Approval on a case by case basis. There was discussion around the difference and significance of "fees" vs "fines" in this area and whether a "fee" instead of a "fine" would merely encourage bad behavior. Christian Autor suggested consideration be given for something to be done in lieu of a fee. The Tree Commission will research the difference between HOA (i.e., multi-family) and Commercial for application of fees. While Kathleen Philpot- Costa was not able to attend this evening, we have attached her email for thoughts on this subject. The City of Falls Church is committed to the letter and spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document will be made available in alternate format upon request. Call (703) 248- 5040. TTY 711.   Streetscape Design Standards. We discussed urban forestry themes developed for a discussion with members of the Planning Commission around Streetscape planning. Kate will follow up with Kwafo on scheduling the discussion. 6. Plan Reviews  Review of revised Mason Row development proposal. In response to the developer's fifth submission, the Tree Commission will send a follow up memo in response to Members of Council, the Planning Commission and the City Manager. While Kathleen Philpot-Costa was not able to attend this evening, we have attached her email, the substance of which will be incorporated into the memo.  Review of subdivision proposal at 102 W. Rosemary Lane. Nothing to report.  Review of 205 Park Avenue redevelopment proposal. It was recommended the Arborist encourage the developer to incorporate more native species into the site plan. 7. Informational Items  Status of city capital projects. The Coe Branch Restoration has been completed, however some of the rock fill was disturbed by the recent storm and must be repositioned. At the Jessie Thackrey School, there is an issue with the lack of handicapped parking by the back of the School and entrance to Frady Park. DPW and Parks and Recreation will address the problem.  Solarize Falls Church. The Arborist recommended a discussion around tree canopy goals and Solarize Falls Church. On the surface, encouraging solar would seem to require reducing tree canopy in residential areas in order to facilitate a more efficient solar collection. 8. Future Business  No updates to report.  Tree Recognition program  Tree canopy goals and strategies  Code updates/modifications relating to urban forestry  Enforcement of site plan landscape violations 9. Adjourned: 9:05pm 10. Next Meeting: June 17th These minutes are respectively submitted by Dennis Szymanski, Tree Commission Secretary. The City of Falls Church is committed to the letter and spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document will be made available in alternate format upon request. Call (703) 248- 5040. TTY 711. RE: Item #5 Current Business - Fees for Permits and Violations From: Kathleen Philpott Costa [mailto:kathleen.philpott@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:33 PM To: Kate Reich; dennis.szymanski48@verizon.net dennis.szymanski48@verizon.net; robert.donaldson@verizon.net Donaldson; Larry Dorr Subject: Fwd: UF fee schedule Sorry I'll miss the discussion tonight. I have a few questions and comments on the fee schedule. 1. Would it be appropriate to increase the fee for pruning a public tree without a permit, and even damage to public trees < 6 in. DBH, as a greater disincentive to commercial owners to take pruning into their own hands? 2. Is the fee calculation structure for pruning larger public trees without a permit ($50 for % of circumference) common practice and easy for UF to manage? If you think it leaves a lot of room for interpretation and argument with the offender, maybe we should consider a hefty flat penalty instead. I defer to you with your experience. 3. My only other question is about the fees under "landscape installation and protection." Do those fees apply to residential too? I think that a landscaping bond is already onerous for a single family, so I worry that a bond management fee and inspection fees on top of that would discourage residential owners from consulting with UF. If I had to make a public policy choice, I’d rather encourage residential property owners to consult with the arborist so there’s more chance of them doing things properly. However, if these fees are standard in a residential context and important to compensate the arborist for the amount of time these inspections take, maybe they could just be reduced for residential. RE: Item #6. Plan Reviews From: Kathleen Philpott Costa [mailto:kathleen.philpott@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:56 PM To: Kate Reich Cc: Anna M. Wilson; Christian Autor; robert.donaldson@verizon.net Donaldson; David Chojnacky; dennis.szymanski48@verizon.net dennis.szymanski48@verizon.net; Laurence Dorr Subject: Re: Items to consider before the May 20 TC meeting In the Planning Commission memo on the website, it states that the Streetscape Plan for West Broad Street will be followed for West and Broad Streets. There’s mention of a connecting walk to the W&OD trail as a voluntary concession, but no mention of further enhancements to the landscaping/greenscaping in the park area adjacent to the development. Didn’t the TC ask for that earlier? If so, maybe it’s worth reiterating the request. There’s still a lot of public upset about this project, and the folks on Grove Ave. would also very much like good linkage and some proffers to fix up that part of the regional park. The City of Falls Church is committed to the letter and spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document will be made available in alternate format upon request. Call (703) 248- 5040. TTY 711.