Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves removal of two dead historic oaks, directs effort to save third amid Sprouts retail proposal
Summary
After a multi-hour quasi-judicial hearing, the commission approved removal of two dead or dying historic live oaks and allowed the applicant to attempt to preserve a third healthy 45-inch tree; the motion passed 4–1 after staff, an arborist and the developer testified about stormwater and grading constraints.
The City Commission held a quasi-judicial public hearing on a historic-tree-removal application (HTR-1-26) tied to a proposed PUD and a likely Sprouts anchor tenant at 507 S. Myrtle. Staff and the applicant presented arborist findings, engineering constraints and multiple site-layout iterations.
City compliance coordinator Channing Malalo summarized the arborist findings: two trees (Nos. 1 and 6) were assessed as dead or dying and recommended for removal; tree 7, a 45-inch live oak, was found in good condition but staff concluded it could not be preserved without defeating required stormwater and parking designs. Malalo read the arborist's statement that "tree number 1 has no chance of ever being healthy again." The applicant's engineering team explained the site needs about three feet of fill, roughly 60,000 cubic yards across the property, and an underground exfiltration system; engineer Brent Linson and developer Scott Cole said that system conflicts with protecting the tree's critical root zone.
Arborist Don Spence cautioned about the long-term effects of covering roots with fill: "When you stick 3 feet of fill on top of the roots, there's no gas exchange," he said, and warned that trees can decline over a decade after root burial. Commissioners pressed about alternative parking layouts, tree wells, and the possibility of sacrificing some parking to preserve canopy. Vice Mayor McGurk moved to approve removal of trees 1 and 6 and to withhold approval to remove tree 7 while directing the applicant to make a good-faith effort to preserve it; the motion was seconded and carried 4–1 (Commissioner Martin opposed). The approval was conditioned on final PUD and site-plan review and required mitigation measures for removed trees and preservation language for other on-site canopy.
The developer said the schedule for the tenant (Sprouts) is tight and that delay could imperil delivery commitments, but indicated willingness to commit preserved-canopy areas in the PUD. Staff said preserved trees and additional open-space commitments would be included in final approvals and that any removal would be subject to mitigation provisions.
