Falls Church officials are considering requiring future commercial developers to meet minimum tree-planting requirements.
The number of projects that any change could impact might be small, however.
City Council members at a March 17 work session agreed to a staff request to begin considering minimum tree-coverage requirements on new commercial development.
Currently, there is no minimum required in the city. State law allows localities to require up to 10% canopy for commercial and mixed-use lots.
Council members agreed with staff that consideration of requirements for commercial property takes precedence over any changes to existing rules on residential redevelopment.
“We should focus on business first, residential second,” Council member Marybeth Connelly said.
But most of the city’s recent redevelopment projects have been regulated through the “special exception” process, similar to Arlington’s site-plan process and Fairfax County’s proffers.
In such cases, developers agree to certain conditions imposed by city leaders in order to obtain necessary zoning changes.
In Falls Church, recent large mixed-use redevelopments have included tree-canopy components in excess of 10%. “In some cases, we’re almost double that,” Mayor Letty Hardi said.
Even so, Hardi said that codifying rules for those using by-right development is worth addressing and should take precedence over possible changes on the residential side.
“I do support tackling commercial first” before moving on, she said.
According to an estimate by Charles Prince, the city government’s lead arborist, Falls Church’s overall tree canopy is 48% — higher than in Arlington or Alexandria, but slightly below the regional goal of 50% being sought by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Council members and others at the March 17 meeting suggested that 50% is a worthwhile goal for the Little City.
“Symbolically, it would be an important thing to do,” said Amy Crumpton, who chairs the city’s Urban Forestry Commission.
Given the increasing urbanization in the 2.2-square-mile city, whether it would be feasible remains an open question.
“It may take decades,” Crumpton said. “We really don’t know.”
Prince said there were some options for getting the extra 2%. “We do have a lot of streets that could use some trees, we do have some opportunities in parks,” he said.
But just being able to maintain current levels would be a reasonable objective, he said.
“If we can get to 50%, that’s great. If we keep just under 50%, that’s great, too,” Prince said.
