Olivette commissioners push to tighten petition reviews and clarify tree‑report rules

The Olivette City Planning & Community Design Commission on March 5 heard staff proposals to tighten petition review procedures and clarify tree‑report requirements, with staff saying they will move to a 30‑day completeness timeline and route completed plans to an outside stormwater consultant before commission review.

Jack Carswell, planning and zoning administrator, told the commission that the staff flowchart and review process are being revised so that "they have 30 days to make the submission complete" and staff will merge the previous completeness and in‑depth review steps to reduce back‑and‑forth on incomplete files. He said staff and director Carlos Trejo plan to send plans to the stormwater consultant once a submission is designated complete so the commission receives stormwater comments earlier.

The changes, staff said, are intended to reduce the number of items the commission must defer because technical reviews are not finished. "If we don't hear from 30 days, that permit or action will be voided," Carswell said, explaining the restart of the review clock when revisions arrive within the 30‑day window.

Why it matters: the proposal changes how petitioners, neighbors and staff coordinate technical reviews and public outreach. Commissioners said the change could reduce the number of premature agenda items but will shift pressure on applicants to provide full materials up front.

Commissioners debated whether stormwater consultant review should be treated as part of an "app complete" determination. One commissioner argued strongly that the commission should not see an application until the stormwater consultant has reviewed it, saying, "I don't wanna see an application until that report's been done." Other commissioners noted the commission commonly grants conditional approvals "subject to" consultant review and relies on the independent consultant for technical checks.

Tree‑report changes

Staff also outlined proposed edits to the city’s tree ordinance (identified in staff discussion as ordinance 2821) to clarify which documents must be prepared by a certified arborist and which may be prepared by a certified landscape architect. Carswell summarized the staff approach: the tree inventory would continue to require a certified arborist, but the replacement plan could be prepared by "an arborist or a certified landscape architect" — preserving the ordinance’s substantive requirements (native species, 33% diversity) while reducing design‑cost pressure on applicants.

Several commissioners expressed concern about added cost and the proliferation of consultants for single projects. One participant warned the layering of requirements could create more work for builders: "I mean, I could see it... you have 10 consultants to build the same house," the participant said, urging staff to balance protection goals with affordability.

Shared trees, credits and enforcement

Staff raised a separate technical question about crediting trees whose trunks sit on or cross property lines, saying those shared trees are often noted on surveys and staff will examine how such trees should count in replacement calculations. Commissioners asked staff to run the numbers and return with a proposal.

The group also discussed enforcement if a tree approved for protection later disappears during construction. Commissioners suggested a range of options, from increased replacement requirements to other penalties, but staff cautioned that proving intent and administering punitive measures is legally and practically difficult.

Next steps

Carswell told the commission he will return with revised text and an updated flowchart at the next meeting. No formal vote or ordinance adoption occurred; the session was a staff presentation and guidance from the commission.