AUSTIN | The Bowie | 423 FT | 37 FLOORS | Complete

[MichaelB]

Re: our one little tree. I will admit I am torn on this.
We will grow up and out and have to manage both. I dare say those folks that may build in the burbs might be more temped to opt for the vertical gated community if there was an actual tree left on the block. (...thought this development does back up to the greenbelt) Saving one tree seems like a small thing. But it is more about establishing a policy that will ensure that there is green downtown as well. Perhaps it will force developers to include green space with their highrise. That is a great idea. If you live downtown you know the most appealing downtown blocks have pockets of green.( I am very happy that our building actually has a few trees around it.) I Haven't seen the design, but I would bet it would actually make for a better "human" design and still have a developer profit just fine. OR...maybe they will indeed bargain big to swap out tree/green planting on the property to balance the loss.
In either case, I think the issue is more complex that it first appears.

[Jdawgboy]

This is my take on it. The ordinance should be changed but what I would like to see is any developer that plans to build and that has to chop down a tree or multiple trees, they need to replace them with new trees. But I would like to see it go further. For every ten feet in height a tree is that is cut down they would have to plant another tree. For example the article mentions this was a 50 foot tree. If it was cut down for a project then the developer would have to plant 5 pecan trees in its place. If they cannot plant all of them on their property then some sort of city policy should be in place that they can plant the trees in a public park or space. This should also count for those developers who want to build a large sprawled out shopping center with massive parking lots. However many trees they cut down, they are obligated to replace and however high the trees are in 10 foot intervals then they increase the replacement trees. In this way, you could discourage low level sprawled growth in favor of density as to lessen the cost to plant tons of trees.

This is clearly a ploy by the planning commission to find any way to stop this project from going forward even though the developer followed city ordinances and had a height cap of 400 feet and it was not in a Capital View Corridor, but because of one tree, they shot it down. By the way there are two other pecans on that sam lot roughly the same height that would not have needed to be cut down.

As far as heritage trees, they should use age as the defining decision over the girth of the trunk. Depending on the species of tree you can have large sized trunks for fairly young trees like Cottonwoods. The pecan in question is not even 100 years old. But again the Planning commission can easily look the other way when dozens if not hundreds of trees are wiped out for low level sprawl but make a huge fuss over one tree.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Usually planning comission decisions are no more than recommendations to the city council. But the heritage tree ordinance seems to require the planning comission support before a project can move forward.

Saving that single tree in lieu of downtown densification sure seems anti-environmental. Maybe the developer can offer to plant a bunch of trees on Austin parkland or elsewhere in the city and appeal the decision. That certaintly seems like a win for everyone.

From what I have read, this is a final decision on the project. Im assuming that the developer will have to re-apply if they are even planing to fight this or they will have to buy a new lot downtown.

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm sorry, but unless they plan on turning that block into a park, I don't see how the tree can benefit the public. It's in a dark cramped alley on a private piece of property.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'm sorry, but unless they plan on turning that block into a park, I don't see how the tree can benefit the public. It's in a dark cramped alley on a private piece of property.

Is that where the tree is? Seriously... Ugh to this city sometimes.

[TXAlex]

I think this is the back alley tree

[The ATX]

I guess the "Tiniest Bar in Texas" has been saved because a tree out back.

[wwmiv]

That tree is useless, it needs to go.

[BevoLJ]

I don't even know what to say about this whole mess. Only in Austin can people with such great intentions be so misguided and screw up.

It is a beautiful tree. I grant you that. But it is in the back of a property, not even on the side walk and providing little to anyone. Are they wanting to save it for tree hugging reasons? Because providing a ton of housing on this little lot is going to be a lot better than some new suburban subdivision outside of the city providing nothing to the tax base and cutting down many more trees in the process.

[The ATX]

It could be a conspiracy to protect the views of some of the Spring residents.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

It could be a conspiracy to protect the views of some of the Spring residents.

Can't they just redesign the building to only take up the half lot closer to the Spring and use the other half as some sort of short structure which has retail? I know this is basically caving to the idiots on the commission, but it isn't impossible.

(This does have the assumption that both halves are theirs, not just the section further from the Spring... I honestly don't know).

[ATXboom]

If this is the standard, the city better update the 'developable' land map and maximum build out images for downtown. My guess is that a sizeable chunk will be useless thanks to a few trees.

Its this bigger thinking that is needed to better inform the impact of these small thinking/isolated decisions.

[The ATX]

If this tree is on private property what's keeping the current owners from making it "disappear"?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

If this tree is on private property what's keeping the current owners from making it "disappear"?

LOL. You know, I'd love for them to just fucking chop it down and say to the city: to the hell with you fuckers.

[austin242]

I don't get why they can't just transplant the tree.

[Armybrat]

That 70 year old pecan tree is in the last quarter of it's life cycle. Judging from the amount of pavement & building around it, it 's a miracle the thing has survived this long.

My wife's grandfather planted several pecan trees on his large lot in Taylor in 1910 when he built the family homestead on Davis Street.

All those trees had died off at the turn of the century.

[The ATX]

Note to all downtown property owners: Cut down all trees on your property before you put it up for sale to developers.

This ordinance may backfire in more ways than one.

[ROCrot]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

That 70 year old pecan tree is in the last quarter of it's life cycle. Judging from the amount of pavement & building around it, it 's a miracle the thing has survived this long.

My wife's grandfather planted several pecan trees on his large lot in Taylor in 1910 when he built the family homestead on Davis Street.

All those trees had died off at the turn of the century.

Exactly. Pecan trees may grow to be relatively large, but they really don't live all that long. They're not live oaks, and they're not redwoods.

Chop it down, say "whoopsie", pay the fine, and then build the building anyway.

Another example of the law of unintended consequences.

[TXAlex]

Chop down a tree and get throw in jail like Hunter Wheeler of Hunter Wheeler homes. Got to love a cedar tree.

[ROCrot]

Originally Posted by TXAlex

Chop down a tree and get throw in jail like Hunter Wheeler of Hunter Wheeler homes. Got to love a cedar tree.

Not hardly. If true, it would have been the front page headline of all the local newspapers, on all the nightly cable and network TV talk shows, and heard about all across the globe. It would also still be fresh in our minds, because we would have been talking about it for the past 3 years straight!



Charge against developer for tree cutting dismissed
By Steven Kreytak | Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 03:23 PM

As expected, the criminal mischief charge against Austin developer Hunter Wheeler — accused of illegally cutting down a tree last year — has been dismissed by Travis County prosecutors.

Neighbors on Daniel Drive in South Austin called police in 2007 after a landscaping crew cut down a large cedar tree in the city-owned right of way.

The workers told the neighbors that Wheeler had told them to cut the tree, which was across from a home Wheeler had built. Neighbors speculated that he wanted to clear the way for a city skyline view from that home.

Wheeler's case had been set on state District Judge Julie Kocurek's jury trial docket today. But prosecutors formally dismissed the felony charge — which is punishable by up to two years in jail — Tuesday, writing in a court paper that Wheeler "has complied with the request of the complainant to their full satisfaction."

Assistant District Attorney Kathryn Scales, who could not be immediately reached today, said for a story on the case in Saturday's Statesman that Wheeler paid for a crew to remove the stump of the cedar tree and planted a live oak tree in its place.

In exchange, Scales said, prosecutors planned to dismiss the case. She said the dismissal was contingent on a city forester confirming that the newly planted tree is healthy and meets the terms of the deal.

City Forester Walter Passmore said Wednesday that he had not inspected the live oak tree and is still waiting for Wheeler to offer a plan on how he is going to care for the tree. He said that Wheeler is responsible for watering and other care to keep the tree alive.

Wheeler did not immediately return a call for comment.