Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees And Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flexible-setback request to save 24-inch oak at 6 AD Street fails on 3'3 vote
Summary
The board considered a flexible-setback application to reduce the front setback from 20 feet to 17.5 feet at 6 AD Street to preserve a 24-inch oak on a neighboring lot; after lengthy public comment and technical questions about surveys and topography, the motion failed 3'3 on a roll call.
The Planning & Zoning Board considered Application E, a request to apply the city's flexible-setback rule to reduce a required 20-foot front setback to 17.5 feet at 6 AD Street so the applicant could preserve a large oak tree sited near the property line on an adjacent lot.
Why it mattered: The applicant, Craig Thompson, said the allowance would protect a 24-inch-diameter oak and argued the code's flexible-setback provisions were intended to preserve important canopy trees. He presented diagrams showing the tree's trunk and the calculation used to set a critical root-zone radius.
Discussion highlights: planners and board members pressed the applicant for more detailed site information. Board members asked why a full topographic survey and floor plans had not been submitted; staff noted the flexible-setback ordinance requires a site plan showing the tree and a topography survey. The discussion also covered whether the tree sits on the applicant's parcel or on neighboring property, homeowners-association protections for the tree, potential impacts to parking and right-of-way, and whether approving this request would set a precedent for future flexible-setback requests.
Board action and vote: A motion to approve the flexible-setback request "as presented" (site plan dimensions identified in the application) was made and seconded. The board conducted a roll call vote: Dowling — Aye; Bridal — Nay; Einhauser — Aye; Sarris — Nay; Ryan — Aye; Hogan — Nay. The tally was three ayes and three nays, so the motion failed for lack of a majority.
Next steps: The applicant was advised that the commission and building staff should be consulted on technical stormwater and survey matters. Several board members said they would prefer a complete site/topography plan if the applicant seeks re-consideration.
