Consider Landscape and Tree Preservation Plans for Woodlands 4th Addition; Case of Lennar Corporation

Lennar Corporation (the "Applicant") has submitted an application for both a Preliminary Plat and variance for their final phase of the Woodlands project, Woodlands 4th Addition.  The project site is generally located north of Alpine Drive and east of Variolite St.  A portion of Woodlands 4th Addition has already received Preliminary Plat approval; the Applicant has a purchase agreement in place with the property owner to the south to acquire approximately fifteen (15) acres that would be incorporated into Woodlands 4th Addition.  This review is specific to this 'new' parcel, which is proposed to have thirteen (13) lots.

The City's Natural Resources Inventory (NRI), completed in 2007, identifies a moderate quality wetland complex in and around the project area as well as altered, non-native plant communities in the area.  Per the Tree Preservation Plan, the site is dominated by oak and ash trees.  The City's new wetland setback and lot depth standard should aid in providing some additional protection of the wetland areas. 

The Tree Preservation Plan indicates that forty-three percent (43%) of the existing significant trees will be retained on site.  However, the tree preservation standards in City Code are based on existing significant tree DBH inches rather than a simple count of trees.  The Tree Preservation Plan will need to be updated to provide a total count of DBH inches for the site, as well as a breakdown of DBH inches that will be removed and preserved to determine if the project exceeds the removal threshold (in residential development, a project must retain at least forty percent [40%] of the DBH inches or is subject to reforestation requirements).

In addition to the aforementioned revisions, the Tree Preservation Plan and the Grading and Drainage Plan both need to be updated to include several items.  Tree Save fencing must be shown on both plans and shall be installed and then approved by the City prior to any clearing work.  Also, because of the presence of oak stands, clearing will need to occur prior to April 15 or after July 15 to minimize exposure to oak wilt.  Finally, the Applicant will also need to submit a plan outlining the precautionary steps to be taken on site to prevent the introduction of oak wilt.

The Landscape Plan is generally acceptable.  Staff has requested several notes be added to it for clarification purposes.  This includes a note stating that any deviation from the planting plan requires the approval of the City prior to installation (this is to prevent prohibited species from being installed) and the need for a tree planting detail to assure that the trees are properly planted (primarily focused on correct planting depth).

The project site does have some floodplain areas.  No detailed study has been completed by FEMA and thus, this floodplain is classified as General Floodplain District.  This boundary will need to be added to the plan set.  If any proposed disturbance will occur within this floodplain boundary, the Applicant will need to submit additional information to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation and to determine if disturbance would occur in the flood fringe or floodway district. 

One of the the thirteen (13) proposed lots does not meet the lot depth requirement.  Lot 2, Block 1 is, at its narrowest depth, ninety-five (95) feet deep, which is short of the required 100 foot depth.  When reviewing the exhibit provided by the Applicant, it appears that the depth deficiency impacts approximately 125 square feet of area, which is a rather small impact.  However, this lot is not necessarily much wider than a typical interior lot (at the front yard setback line, lot width is 100 feet compared to the minimum required width of eighty [80] feet).  The Applicant is seeking a variance to the lot depth standard for this lot.

Staff finds the Landscape Plan generally acceptable with revisions outlined in the Staff Review Letter.  While additional information is needed regarding the Tree Preservation Plan to determine if any reforestation will be needed, Staff does not believe that this alone should prevent this request from moving forward.  The specific revisions and additional information needed is outlined in the Staff Review Letter and any recommendation for approval can simply be made contingent upon compliance with the Staff Review Letter.

Staff is seeking recommendations from the Board on the Landscape Plan, Tree Preservation Plan, and the variance request related to lot depth for Lot 2.

The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with this request.

Motion to recommend approval of the Landscape Plan and Tree Preservation Plan, contingent upon compliance with the Staff Review Letter;

-and-

Motion to recommend approval/denial of the variance request for lot depth on Lot 2, Block 1.