HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-431 - Vacation-2025-0002: (East Of 1775 W. Mitchell ST./Mitchell Street Townhomes, 520)
TO:Mayor Rawn and City Council
FROM:Urban Forestry Advisory Board
DATE:April 13, 2025
SUBJECT:CITY COUNCIL MEMO 2025-431 AND VACATION-2025-0002: (EAST
OF 1775 W. MITCHELL ST./MITCHELL STREET TOWNHOMES, 520)
RECOMMENDATION:
The Urban Forestry Advisory Board (the “Board”) advises that, if City Council approves VAC-2025-002,
it conditions its approval with no fewer than the conditions recommended in CITY COUNCIL MEMO
2025-431. Further, the Board advises that the following additions, redlined below, are made to those
conditions:
Removal of all invasive species and trash from all three tree preservation easements shall be
implemented prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the new development on
Parcel No. 765-07564-000
Planting of 28 56mitigation within the proposed tree preservation easements, in addition to the
mitigation trees that will be required with the development of the Mitchell St. parcel
BACKGROUND:
In CITY COUNCIL MEMO 2025-431, staff recommended conditional approval of VAC-2025-002. This
memo thoroughly documents the background and discussion supporting staff’s recommendation
related to the request to vacate this tree preservation easement, not to be repeated here.
The Board reviewed this vacation request with the City’s Urban Foresters in its April 2, 2025 meeting.
It is the Board’s purpose and duty to advise City Council on urban forestry and arboriculture related
issues as an integral part of the city’s green infrastructure. This includes those issues related to the
Unified Development Code Chapter 167, which governs Tree Preservation Easements.
The Board has historically advised City Council, collectively and individually by its members, through
letters, memos, and public comment. Most recently, the Urban Forestry Advisory Board wrote a letter to
City Council advising it to deny VACATION-2024-0016, Fayetteville School District’s request to vacate
a tree preservation easement at Fayetteville High School. This vacation request was ultimately
approved, though with conditions that were strengthened after constructive debate that considered the
concerns of the Board and other Fayetteville residents.
Page 1 of 5
DISCUSSION:
City Council must consider the best interest of the City of Fayetteville when deciding whether to vacate
and abolish a tree preservation easement. The Board recognizes this requires evaluating many factors
and City priorities, including those that may conflict with preservation of the City’s urban forest. It is the
Board’s responsibility to ensure City Council is fully advised on the importance of Fayetteville’s urban
forest in protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Fayetteville when making these
types of decisions.
In the context of the City’s plans and objectives, the Urban Forestry Advisory Board advocates for
Fayetteville’s urban forest first and foremost. This is not to minimize the many other factors, such as
housing, employment, and mobility, that are vital to the welfare of the City. These should be advocated
for, and they are, by the City’s other boards, committees, and commissions.
The first principle of the City’s Tree Preservation and Protection code of ordinances, UDC
§167.01(B)(1), states, “Preservation shall be the first, best, and standard approach.” The Board stands
firmly behind this principle and, as such, approaches requests to vacate tree preservation easements
with a default opposition. However, the Board understands the need for a mechanism to allow for the
modification and abolition of tree preservation easements, as land use should be able to adapt as the
City changes and grows. When City Council decides requests to vacate these easements, it should not
take lightly the requirement that applicants prove that modification or abolition is in the best interest of
the City of Fayetteville, as stated in UDC §167.04(L)(2).
The Boards advice regarding conditional approval of VAC-2025-002 is primarily based on consideration
of the below principal factors relevant to the City’s objectives for its urban forest. The impact (positive or
negative, if any) is evaluated for each factor, along with the Board’s rationale for the impact and
proposed mitigations that should City Council’s approval.
FACTORIMPACT DISCUSSION MITIGATING CONDITIONS
Preservation of Existing Tree Canopy
Net Easement Positive The applicant proposes to vacate 0.14 The two proposed parcels are
Change(+) acres of the existing easement. The two dedicated as new tree
parcels proposed as new tree preservation preservation easements.
easements total 0.8 acres, for a net
increase of 0.66 acres in tree preservation The remainder of the existing
easement. 0.38 acre tree preservation
easement is not vacated.
Page 2 of 5
FACTORIMPACTDISCUSSIONMITIGATING CONDITIONS
Net Canopy Negative While the proposal results in a net increase 56 mitigation trees are planted
Change(-) of 0.66 acres in tree preservation within the proposed tree
easement, neither of the two parcels preservation easements.
proposed as new tree preservation
easements have a development value Mitigation trees are planted with
comparable to that of the existing the development of the Mitchell
easement to be vacated. As such, there is St. parcel (portion of easement
not an incentive to remove the trees at the to be vacated).
two proposed parcels; the trees at these
sites are not under threat of removal.
Therefore, maintenance of the status quo
would most likely result in the preservation
of existing tree canopy at all three sites
(existing easement and proposed),
whereas approval of the vacation request
will result in removal of 0.14 acres of tree
canopy.
Preservation of None Staff states no trees in the portion of the None.
Significant easement to be vacated meet the 18” DBH
Trees threshold for “significant trees”
Preservation of Negative Staff states the trees in the portion of the Applicant consults, to the
Healthy Trees (-) easement to be vacated are healthy, satisfaction of the Urban
mature deciduous trees. The 0.2 acre Forester, with Consultation with
parcel that is proposed as a new tree the Watershed Conservation
preservation easement contains mature Resource Center to mitigate
canopy, but trees within both proposed riparian erosion on the
parcels are threatened by erosion. proposed tree preservation
easements.
Preservation of Negative Staff states several species of mature trees Invasive species and trash are
Beneficial (-) are located in the portion of the easement removed from all three sites
Trees to be vacated. The removal of these trees before issuance of any
would be a loss of biodiversity, wildlife certificates of occupancy for
habitat, shade, and the many other benefits new development on the
mature trees provide. The 0.2 acre parcel Mitchell St. parcel.
that is proposed as a new tree preservation
easement contains mature canopy, but
trees are threatened by invasive species.
Interaction with Urban Forestry Management Plan
Page 3 of 5
FACTORIMPACTDISCUSSIONMITIGATING CONDITIONS
Tree Equity Negative The existing tree preservation easement is None additional; see above.
Score (-) within a census block group with a Tree
Equity Score of 71 and 22% tree canopy
cover. This ranks 65th of Fayetteville’s 68
block groups and is well below
Fayetteville’s composite Tree Equity Score
of 87. Removal of trees from the portion of
the easement works against Fayetteville’s
tree equity objectives, which consider the
intersection of social, economic, and
environmental considerations. Both
proposed parcels are within census block
groups with a Tree Equity Score of 82,
though trees within these parcels are not
under threat of removal.
Priority Negative The existing easement is a high priority None additional; see above.
Planting Areas (-) planting area based on its relatively low
Tree Equity Score, low tree canopy, high
average surface temperature, and high
health risk index. Each of these indicators
is linked to, and is improved by, the
presence of trees, especially mature trees.
The removal of mature trees from the
portion of the easement to be vacated will
be a setback to the City’s planting priorities.
Interaction with Other City Plans & Objectives
Land Use & Positive The existing easement is contained within a None additional; see above.
Enduring (+)“City Neighborhood” future land use
Green Network designation, and the proposed townhomes
align with the guidance for this designation,
which encourages density. Per City Plan
2040, landscaping in this land use
designation is urban in form, typically with
street trees in sidewalk zones. The
proposed tree preservation easements
contribute to the preservation of the City’s
Enduring Green Network.
Housing Positive The purpose of the vacation request is to None additional; see above.
Supply (+) develop the portion of the easement to be
vacated, and the townhomes proposed for
the site will increase the City’s housing
supply.
Page 4 of 5
In conclusion, the Urban Forestry Advisory Board strongly advises that City Council approve VAC-
2025-002 only if the conditions outlined in CITY COUNCIL MEMO 2025-431 are adopted in their
entirety, along with the additional conditions proposed by the Board for ensuring invasive species
removal and trash removal before issuance of certificates of occupancy and increased mitigation
plantings within the proposed easements. These added conditions are essential to adequately address
the Board's concerns regarding tree canopy loss, preservation of healthy and beneficial trees, and the
City's urban forestry management plan and equity objectives. The Board urges City Council to prioritize
the long-term health and benefits of Fayetteville's urban forest in its final decision.
Page 5 of 5