HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesAGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion concerning landscaping requirements and preserving
existing trees on both developed and undeveloped property. (95-810) ~/'
Senior Planner Kuenzel informed. the Commission that at the present. time, the best that staff has been
able to do with the preservation of trees_is to xequire that .any landscaping that is removed from a
developed site be replaced and that the new landscaping be in accordance with the ordinance that was in
place at the time a site was approved. Due to the fact that a large number of citizens responded
negatively to the most recent act at the Winn Dixie shopping center, staff believes that much of the
community would favor an ordinance amendment. that would protect trees. The current ordinance
requires that landscaping be put in upon- development of a site. At the time a site plan is approved, all
of the trees that are within the first 24' of the frontage. of a tract that. are 4" in caliper or larger must be
saved. However,. this provision does: not preclude a property owner from cutting trees. down before an
application fordevelopment. is made. It also does nothing to save trees located on the. interior of tracts,
nor are undeveloped tracts addressed. Staff requested input and direction regarding an ordinance
amendment with the following possibilities:
(1) Change the Zoning. Ordinance to require that on developed sites where the
landscaping is to be .changed, that .all current points. be required. With the recent
adoption of Streetscape requirements, this option would translate to an additional
point requirement.. above the original landscape assessment and possible parking
screening.. Staff is currently checking .with the Legal Department to make sure that
such an alternative would be legally sound if ' an ordinance change would be
necessary.
(2) Change the Zoning Ordinance to require that all landscaping put in as part of site
plan approval. be .maintained and that trees .put in as a part of the points required
cannot be cut down without special permits.
(3) Change the. Code of Ordinances to require a special .permit .for removal of any
trees that are 4" in caliper or larger and are on the local list of native trees.
Commissioner Gribou stated that he is in favor of a tree preservation ordinance; however, he is
concerned with the enforceability and realistic application of each of the three suggestions. Number
two is probably reasonable and enforceable; however, number one is a little more difficult and
somewhat of an overlap. He suggested that the City at least protect what has previously been approved
.since the major .issue is mature trees. Proposal. three is good in theory; however, it is going to be
difficult to enforce: and may not be realistic to preserve every tree over a certain caliper size.
Commissioner Lightfoot :explained that he has lived in a place where proposal three was. an ordinance
and it creates a tremendous. expense fore development. He stated that he is concerned about what
happened at the Winn Dixie center and that something needs to be done to correct the weaknesses in
the current ordinance. There should be a mechanism to make someone accountable for removing such a
large number of mature trees.
P & Z Minutes September 7, 1885 Page 7 of 8
«-
Commissioner Hall stated that he is concerned that so much goes in to working with a developer on a
landscape plan only to allow them to remove the landscaping at a later date with no recourse.. He
suggestedthat each property be required a pointvalue that. they must maintain at all times. Then if a
developer comes in and clears out all of the. trees, he is in violation of maintaining the point value even
for that. one day. If someone would like to change the total complexion of the property, the most
current landscape requirements should be required instead of what was required when the .property
originally developed. Commissioner Hall expressed concern that the city is not requiring developments
to meet current requirements. If` someone wants to rehabilitate a building or .add on to an existing
business,. then the landscaping. should meet current standards. He also .stated that he does not want an
ordinance that is so restrictive that someone such as Posh Oak Mall. cannot go out and cut down a few
trees if they exceed the point requirements. As long ' as a business maintains the minimum point
requirements, they should be in compliance.. Commissioner Hall also stated that active code
enforcement should be taken: against existing businesses who are in violation of the landscape ordinance.
Senior Planner Kuenzel,explained that the easiest way to enforce the landscape ordinance for existing
businesses is when a building permit is required. Staff will normally tell the applicant that upon final
inspection, the landscaping must be in compliance with the ordinance that was in effect at the time the
development was built. Right now, staff does not have the time to do major code enforcement sweeps
throughout the city and require existing sites o come into compliance.
Commissioner Lane suggested that staff contact older Texas cities to see how they handle .tree
preservation. Heexpressed concern with creating additional requirements and .placing too much control
over development in College Station.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business.
Commissioner Hall expressed concern with the garbage cans .located at the Summit fourplexes that are
visible from F.M. 28I8.
Commissioner Garner informed the -Commission that .the Community Enhancement group is currently
addressing the garbage can situation and gateway entrances to the city.
City Planner Kee informed the Commission that the consultants of the Comprehensive Master Plan will
meet with staff next week to look at possible land use scenarios. After that meeting, there will be two
more community meetings before the last meeting in which the City Council will adopt the plan. The
plan needs to be adopted by the end of the year in order for the parks department to apply for grants.
AGENDA ITEM'NO.S: Adjourn.
Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0).
APPROVED:
Chairman, Kyle Hawthorne
ATTEST:
Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas
P & Z Minutes September 7, 1885 Page 8 of 8