Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection Flexible Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves flexible setbacks to preserve small trees at 122 14th Street despite survey discrepancies
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Board approved flexible front/rear setbacks to preserve multiple small trees at a proposed house site at 122 Fourteenth Street. The application relied on an arborist report; board members debated survey accuracy after staff and neighbors identified a larger 29-inch oak that was not clearly shown in earlier submissions.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted July 15 to approve flexible front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residence at 122 Fourteenth Street to preserve trees identified in an arborist report. The applicant requested a combined front/rear setback of 45 feet (front 17.5 feet, rear 27.5 feet) under the city’s flexible-setback provisions to protect a 13-inch live oak, a 14-inch live oak and a 12-inch cedar. An arborist report accompanying the application advised protections and, in an updated report provided at the meeting, addressed the cedar as well. During the staff presentation and a site visit noted by staff, board members and staff observed an additional large oak — described in the meeting as roughly 29 inches in diameter — that did not appear on the site plan or in the initial arborist submission. Board members pressed the applicant and surveyor about why the larger oak was not depicted and whether the tree inventory on submitted plans was complete. Staff and the applicant said the missing tree would be confirmed on a signed and sealed tree/topographic survey required before permits are issued; staff noted that any tree with a measured diameter of 30 inches or greater triggers additional review and that if such a tree appears on a sealed survey the permit clearance would be withheld until the board is re-notified. Support letters from two neighbors on the same street were in the file. Several board members said the flexible-setback code was intended to allow modest plan shifts to preserve canopy and noted the nearby lot where a similar flexible-setback approval had been granted in May. Other members said the application seemed to rely on saving relatively small trees and questioned whether a smaller setback adjustment would save the larger specimens. The motion to approve included staff conditions and passed on a roll-call vote (Hogan — aye; Kinney — no; Ryan — yes; Kincaid — yes; Dowling — yes; Thompson — yes; Einhauser — aye). Staff advised that a signed and sealed topographical and tree survey will be required before a building clearance is issued; if a 30-inch-or-larger tree is confirmed on that survey the permit will not be cleared and the applicant would need to return to the board.
