Tim Porter
Henry Kunzig
cc: Laurie Reid-Dukes
cc: Brandon Brezeale
Good Morning Tim and Henry:
I'm sorry to be a nuisance but we are up against a hard deadline of Monday PM and would really appreciate some guidance.
The following question regarding the Rezoning petition RZP-2022-121 remains.
A concern has come up that if this 53-acre property is developed as currently zoned “by-right” (N1-A) that the city would require the removal of a three dozen (36 +/-) large "Willow Oaks" on the east side of the property along Rea Road to accommodate the city sidewalk requirements.
There is currently no sidewalk along the entire eastern border of the undeveloped property with Rea Road from just north of Old Course Drive to Four Mile Creek.
These Willow Oaks were planted more than 40 years ago and are large mature trees and while native to North Carolina are not considered "Heritage Trees" as defined by the city ordinance due to their diameter of approximately 22-28 inches.
(Heritage trees being defined as: “any tree native to North Carolina per the US. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service Plants Database with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 30 inches”).
The developer has apparently threatened to remove all the Willow Oaks in order to meet the city sidewalk requirements under a “by-right” development. The developer is apparently using the threat of tree removal to force acceptance of their rezoning petition which includes a multi-use path in lieu of a conventional style sidewalk located deep within the property.
It is my belief that the recently adopted UDO offers guidance.
From the UDO:
Streetscape Modifications for Tree Preservation
The Chief Urban Forester, in consultation with the CDOT Director, may modify the streetscape requirements and the associated streetscape standards found in Article 33 to accommodate the preservation of trees meeting acceptable standards for tree health, structural integrity, and risk level as determined by the Chief Urban Forester. If a modification to the location of the required sidewalk is necessary, then the location of the required sidewalk shall be prioritized in descending order as follows:
· Sidewalk located between trees and building.
· Sidewalk located between curb and trees, with substandard planting strip permitted.
· Sidewalk located at the back of curb, with an additional foot of width added.
Sidewalk widths may be modified to no less than five feet. On arterials with sidewalks located at back of curb, sidewalk widths may be modified to no less than six feet. Modification for sidewalk location or width shall be for the minimum length of sidewalk necessary to accommodate the preservation of trees meeting acceptable standards for tree health, structural integrity, and risk level as determined by the Chief Urban Forester.
This section seems to give Tim Porter, Chief Urban Forester the ability to say the trees stay, overriding the UDO upon consultation with CDOT.
The Chief Urban Forester cannot override the UDO. The UDO provides guidance and some measure of flexibility to consider modifying streetscape standards for tree preservation purposes, when conflicts between tree preservation and streetscape requirements exist. In these scenarios, during land development permitting the Chief Urban Forester and CDOT Director (or their designees) may consult and coordinate modifications as allowed per the UDO.
Can someone tell me what options are available to the developer and to the neighboring homeowners concerned about the preservation of these trees?
Information for neighbors on how they learn about and/or get involved in the rezoning process affecting their neighborhood can be found here. You may also contact your City Council representative or City staff resource for the specific petition.
Is there a way that the developer would be required to provide a sidewalk and yet also preserve the trees? Or perhaps a waiver on the sidewalk requirement?
Yes to a degree. Any applicable tree preservation and streetscape requirements would have to be met by the development customer per an approved rezoning petition. This would include any ordinance-required tree preservation and streetscape requirements. However, site plans approved with conditional rezoning petitions are conceptual in nature and typically don’t/nor are required to include detailed site information needed determine if conflicts exist between requirements in all cases. Typically, if there are site conflicts between required tree preservation and streetscape requirements they’re resolved during the land development permitting process (post rezoning process).
City trees are considered assets of the City and protected at all times. Healthy and structurally sound City trees must be preserved in all scenarios unless significant site conflicts exist. In some cases healthy and structurally sound trees may be authorized for removal if reasonable and adequate measures cannot be provided to ensure success preservation.
Per past survey work, it’s my understanding that all street trees north of the existing driveway on Rea Rd. adjacent to this site are City trees and all trees south of the driveway are not City trees. Planted oak trees south of the driveway likely don’t have any UDO or Charlotte Tree Ordinance protection attached as they’re not City trees or heritage trees.
I am happy to meet on site at any time, even on short notice. Available via zoom, webex if needed, text or voice whatever works for you.
Urban Forestry staff may have availability this week to meet virtually to further discuss your questions. Please let us know what date/times may work for you.
8 comments:
I read this as unless it is rezoned, those trees are indeed gone. Even when he talks about the conflict and conditional plan, he says rezoning is where the adjustment is made. That street is not a City street either, which is important. NCDOT owns it and the right of way and controls it, not the City.
We need to get Ed to get the City to take over Rea and condemn those trees and enough space behind them to allow them to stay. That is the only way those trees stay if the developer goes by-right to avoid paying for all the road improvements and the bridge and trails.
Chris - most of the arguments you make are the opposite of what is true. Rezonings give the community a chance to participate in the design process. By right allows a developer to work WITHOUT input and do whatever they want.
Force it to by right.
Less Homes
Less Traffic
Less Impervious surface
Less Height
Less Storm Water Runoff
Less Construction Time
We need to treat this just like it never happened.
9:13 sorry but even though it is a state route it is city property.
I think Chip said it best "the fact that the developer would even consider removing the forty year old Willow Oaks along Rea Road says everything you need to know about RK Investments".
14:58 Participate in the design process? Sure so far its been shoved down our throats rather aggressively have yet to see any "concessions".
Keep digging check out RK's past deals check PACER and NC COURTS
Y'all let Ed Driggs lead the opposition? Have you not been paying attention? He's never against these things. Guarantee he's already cooked up a vote scam to get this thing passed. Just ask the neighbors on Endhaven or Ardrey Kell.
Post a Comment