Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies tree-preservation waiver for White Settlement Road site after neighborhood opposition
Summary
After testimony from staff, the applicant and neighborhood residents, the Urban Design Commission voted to deny a requested reduction of the tree preservation requirement for properties at 5301 and 5321 White Settlement Road; the approval motion failed 5–2 and the motion to deny passed 5–2.
The Fort Worth Urban Design Commission on July 16 voted to deny a staff-recommended waiver that would have reduced the tree preservation requirement for two parcels on White Settlement Road. Staff had recommended reducing a 25% required preservation level to 11.1% for the combined 1.31-acre site, conditioned on providing removed post-oak timbers to local woodworking groups.
Senior plans examiner Cale Bolson told the commission the site contains five significant post oaks and that under the older ordinance the site must be processed with different thresholds for significance. Bolson said the combined site includes roughly 25,806 square feet of existing canopy and that the applicant’s plan, including mitigation, would provide roughly 33,937 square feet of canopy credit — about 59.9% coverage on a commercial site where 30% is required.
Agent Paul Kelly, a certified arborist with Westwood Professional Services, described preservation methods for tree 1955, a 36-inch post oak that the applicant proposes to preserve, and mitigation techniques including air-pruning roots and hand-excavation during demolition. Kelly said he had arranged with local woodworking groups to accept removed wood for reuse.
Neighborhood representatives pressed for delay and stronger protections. Margaret Johnson, president of the River District Neighborhood Alliance, cited canopy loss in the River District since 2014 and urged the commission to wait for a final plat and for staff to confirm easement locations before permitting tree removals. “How many years will it take to get back to where you’re talking about giving them that access? Decades, not years,” she said.
Commission debate focused on the stage of planning, the difference between the previous and current urban-forestry ordinance, and whether easements or final platting could alter the site’s ability to meet planting locations. The initial motion to approve with the staff’s recommended conditions failed 5–2. Commissioners then moved to deny for the record; that motion passed 5–2.
Staff noted that, if tree preservation later fails (for example if a conserved tree dies because of construction impacts), mitigation via payment into the city’s tree fund would be required; Bolson cited a payment estimate of $16,200 for two trees and an additional $28,800 in one failure scenario described in the hearing. The commission’s denial means the applicant must return with revised plans or additional documentation before the UDC would approve removals or preservation in this particular form.
