Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Mitigation Exception topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University Hills developer asks board to ease tree-mitigation rules for Wheatland project; hearings held over for more data
Summary
HOPE/FotGlobal sought an exception to tree-mitigation rules for the University Hills mixed-use project at 1900 Wheatland Road. Staff said they lacked sufficient mitigation plans and advised the board to hold the cases; the board held both items for further documentation to the March 17, 2025 hearing.
Developers of the University Hills project asked the Dallas Board of Adjustment on Feb. 20, 2025 for relief from certain urban-forest mitigation rules tied to a forest-stand delineation in areas the applicant describes as regrown farmland. The requests were docketed as BDA245-028 (1900 Wheatland Road) and BDA245-029 (Lancaster/Wheatland-related parcels). The board held both cases over to its March 17, 2025 meeting after staff said the application lacked specific mitigation calculations and site-linked plans that staff needs to approve any reduction.
Representatives said the 280-acre University Hills development — a mixed-use project including townhomes, multifamily, retail and a hotel planned near the University of North Texas Dallas campus — contains sections where historical agricultural channelization created a wider floodplain and where young stands of eastern red cedar and other early-succession trees have grown. Developer representatives argued that Article 10’s prohibition on treating old-field succession within 50 feet of a mapped floodplain produces an unreasonable mitigation burden in this unusual, reconfigured landscape.
"This property has been... historical farmland," civil engineer David Pitcher said during the presentation, describing agricultural channels that altered the floodplain and left areas that are younger, regrown stands rather than remnant hardwood forest. The developer submitted a forest-stand delineation and tree survey and asked the board to allow use of the city’s old-field succession tool within a defined area that includes portions within the mapped floodplain. The applicant said removal of smaller, lower-quality trees would be necessary to build streets, detention and housing, and that mitigation calculated under existing rules would be financially infeasible for the project without relief.
City staff and the city attorney advised the board that the board does not rewrite code language but can grant a site-specific special exception to Article 10 to reduce mitigation requirements. Staff told the board it did not have adequate site-specific mitigation plans and precise mitigation calculations tied to a recorded site plan to implement the requested exception. Staff and the applicant agreed a narrower, mapped request tied to the phase‑one development area and accompanied by a clear tree-mitigation spreadsheet and site plan would allow staff to review and the board to act.
After discussion the board voted 4-0 to hold both cases to March 17, 2025 to allow the applicant to deliver the additional maps, tree survey details, mitigation calculations and a site-tied landscape/mitigation plan for staff review.
