Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ace Hardware expansion at 11 Garnett raises tree‑removal and parking debate; board asks for arborist recheck
Summary
An Ace Hardware proposal to expand warehouse space at 11 Garnett Avenue prompted extended board discussion about removal of five significant trees and a parking shortfall. The board granted the applicant a continuance to April 1 to allow additional arborist assessment and to explore redesigns that preserve the large live oak.
The Planning & Zoning Board on Feb. 4 took testimony and then continued an application from Ace Hardware for a rear addition at 11 Garnett Avenue after substantial public comment about tree retention and stormwater impacts. The expansion footprint would affect several trees identified as significant in the developer’s tree inventory; staff also said the proposed addition would create a parking deficit under city code.
Why it matters: The proposal pits two recognized local priorities — preserving mature tree canopy in Uptown neighborhoods and allowing existing, long‑standing local businesses to modernize and expand — against one another. Board members repeatedly urged the applicant to exhaust low‑impact alternatives that would retain the large 96‑inch live oak on the site.
What was proposed: The applicant’s plan calls for a roughly 6,000‑square‑foot addition primarily for warehouse use attached to the rear of an existing Ace building that fronts San Marco Avenue. The project would move some employee/service parking and loading into the rear yard; applicant materials showed the site currently provides 45 parking spaces overall but the addition would increase the code‑required number of spaces by about 17 while the rear layout can only accommodate about four new spaces.
Tree and stormwater issues: The applicant’s arborist inventory concluded several trees were in poor condition; the board asked for a second focused inspection of one large tree with hollows and an active beehive before making a final call. Several neighbors and speakers urged saving the 96‑inch live oak and urged more on‑site detention features or underground chambers to avoid pushing runoff onto neighbors.
Board action and next steps: The board approved a motion to continue the application to April 1 to allow the applicant to: (1) arrange relocation of the bees and provide a more detailed arborist assessment of the hollowed live oak (to demonstrate whether it is structurally sound or hazardous), (2) supply canopy/TPZ (tree protection zone) overlays showing impacts, and (3) provide quantified stormwater and parking alternatives (including potential underground chamber storage) that could reduce off‑site runoff. On return, staff and the arborist should show how tree protection or mitigation credits would be applied under city tree/landscape rules.
