Olivette planning commission discusses tightening review timing, tree-protection rules and accessory-structure caps

Commissioners and staff spent the latter portion of the Jan. 16 meeting on a series of procedural and code topics: changing how petition completeness is determined and scheduled, tightening requirements around tree protection and replacement during construction, and clarifying accessory-structure review thresholds.

Staff proposed removing the fixed 10-day automatic-scheduling rule and instead scheduling items to the next available meeting only after staff determines an application is complete. Staff said the proposed change will reduce last-minute, incomplete filings that hamper thorough review; the recommended administrative window for staff to determine completeness was increased from 10 to 15 days to reflect workloads. "If everything is fully complete then it'll come to the commission at its next scheduled meeting," Carlos Trejo said. Commissioners discussed doing more pre-application reviews for complex projects; staff said the code permits pre-application meetings and they will continue to encourage them for larger or professionally prepared applications.

On tree protection and replacement, staff proposed several practical changes: require the surveyor’s tree locations to be the basis for an arborist report (rather than allowing separate, uncoordinated plans), require an arborist report to accompany demolition permits so the city knows what trees existed at demolition time, and set straightforward replacement standards (for example, replacing significant trees removed during construction rather than leaving decisions to ad hoc negotiations). Several public commenters recommended the city require certified arborists (not landscape designers) and suggested creating a preferred-arborist list to improve consistency. Jack Carswell said many recent submissions have used the same consulting firm; staff said they may consider an independent consultant for high-priority projects as the program evolves, but emphasized any rules must be enforceable by building inspectors who are not certified arborists.

On accessory structures, staff summarized the ordinance history: older rules allowed accessory structures to cover a percentage of the rear yard; the 2019 rewrite created tiers and a clear administrative threshold so staff can approve modest accessory work while sending larger, potentially impactful proposals to the commission. Commissioners discussed whether the commission should have an explicit cap it can approve per accessory structure (for example, limiting detached garages to a defined maximum footprint or height) rather than only relying on cumulative yard-coverage limits and site-plan review. Several commissioners and public speakers urged simplicity and clear, measurable standards (diameter-at-breast-height thresholds, or a simple replacement-ratio such as "replace a removed 20-inch tree with three 4-inch caliper trees"). Staff cautioned that a species-specific point system can be complex to administer and that the city needs enforceable standards the inspectors can check in the field.

Public comments emphasized preservation where feasible and clarity for applicants. Stephanie Todd suggested the city require simultaneous submission of the survey/site plan and certified arborist report and consider a preferred-arborist list. Kate Pishon Hellman asked whether a demolition permit would require an arborist report; staff confirmed demolition permits will require arborist documentation so the city can identify and, if warranted, preserve significant trees. Susan Kolleg asked whether demolition approvals could include conditions preserving specified trees; staff said demolition reviews will include arborist reports and staff will indicate if particular trees should be retained as part of permit conditions.

Direction and next steps: staff said it will draft ordinance and administrative changes and return to the commission for further discussion, aiming to present proposals at the Feb. 6 meeting where feasible. Commissioners asked staff to keep the standards simple and enforceable and to consider whether limited consultant resources (for example, a contracted arborist) should be used for complex or high-priority reviews.

Ending: The commission did not vote on legislative changes at Jan. 16; staff will draft revisions to the application-timing rule, demolition-arborist requirement, coordinated survey/arborist workflow, and accessory-structure guidance for future commission consideration.