Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-27 - Agendas - FinalFAYETTEVILLE HE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS JOHN F. MERRELL, PLANNING MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR • To: City Planning Commission From: John F. Merrell, Planning Management Director Date: February 23. 1989 Subject: February 27. 1989 Meeting Attached you will find your agenda packet for our February 27 meeting. In addition to the normal materials I have included an article on tree protection ordinances from the latest issue of Zoning News. I would also like to remind you of our special meeting on March 8 to discuss the draft General Plan document and the upcoming development of the new zoning ordinance. We expect any day to receive the draft Plan document from our consultant. Al Raby. and we will forward a copy to you right away. At the conclusion of our February 27 meeting I would like to have a brief discussion on the details of the March B special meeting. If you have any questions please let me know. JFM/ca Attachment 113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501 575-8330 t1 W'' T I1 I '1 •IE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS • AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 27, 1989, at 5:00 p.m., in the City Administration Building, Directors Room second floor, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. BUSINESS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING R89-7: Submitted by James Lindsey and represented by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates. Vantage Square Tract 1, Property located on the North side of Joyce St. and South of Stearns Rd. containing 17.16 acres. Request to rezone from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial & R-0, Residential -Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. 2. PUBLIC HEARING R89-8: Submitted by James Lindsey and represented by Tom Hopper of Grafton, Tull & Associates. Vantage Square Tract 2, Property located on the North side of Joyce St. containing 10.70 acres. Request to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-0, Residential -Office. 3. PUBLIC HEARING R89-9: Submitted by James Lindsey and represented by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates. Vantage Square Tract 3, Property located along South Side of Joyce St. containing 7.94 acres. Request to rezone from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-0, Residential -Office to R -O, Residential -Office. 4. PUBLIC HEARING R89-10: Submitted by James Lindsey and represented by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates. Vantage Square Tract 4, Property located along the South side of Joyce St. containing 19.77 acres. Request to rezone from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-2, Medium Density residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. 113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501 521-7700 •PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 27, 1989 PAGE 2 5. Preliminary Plat: Vantage Square Subdivision - Unit 2, submitted by James Lindsey & represented by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located along the North and South sides of Joyce St East of Frontage Rd. and West of Old Missouri Rd. zoned R-0, Residential -Office and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and containing 132.23 acres with 12 proposed lots. 6. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING R89-6: Submitted by J. D. Crouch of Alta Investment Ind. Property located at 1728 -014 Mis....cni ffiss;on E5Iv4 .Rd. containing 1.3 acres. (C.orrecj,ori 2 -27- Sol Request to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R -O, Residential - Office. 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT: Hemingway Ridge Subdivision, Phase 1, submitted by Rock Reed and represented by Jorgensen and Associates for property located along the North side of Stubblefield Rd. West of Old Missouri Rd. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential containing 4.90 acres and 18 proposed lots. 8. LOT SPLIT NO. 1: Submitted by Terry Force for Braum's IceCream Co. Property located along the west side of N. College Ave. and East of Villa St. containing .35 acres, and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. 9. LOT SPLIT NO. 1: Submitted by R. J. Keating for property located on lot 5, Blk. 1, of Colt Square. containing .85 acres. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. 10. LOT SPLIT NO. 3: Submitted by Ray Adams for property located at 5869 E. Huntsville Rd. Property zoned R-1, Low Density residential containing .34 acres. 11. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - TANDEM LOT: Submitted by Ray Adams for property at 5869 E. Huntsville Rd. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential containing .34 acres. 12. LOT SPLIT NO. 1: Submitted by Robert Neukranz for property located on the North side of Rockwood Trail on part of lot 9, Block 1 of South Hampton Addition. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential containing .75 acres. 13. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - TANDEM LOT: Submitted by Robert Neukranz for property located on the North side of Rockwood Trail on part of lot 9, Block 1 of South Hampton Addition. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential containing .75 • 4111 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 27, 1989 PAGE 3 • 14. Rezoning Criteria. 15. Appointment of Committee Members. 16. OTHER BUSINESS. 17. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 1989. • j • • A Tree Grows in Suburbia . In Pinellas County, Florida, before the county adopted a tree preservation code, builders would market new homes by showing off a model with extensive landscaping and large trees. Later, after all the home sites were sold off, builders would clear the remaining tracts, put up homes and tell stunned homebuyers that landscaping was their responsibility. Such clear -cutting practices are not unique to Florida. A recent study by Tree Atlanta, a conservation group, shows that the metropolitan area loses the equivalent of up to 50 acres of woodlands per day during the prime building season. And the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that many of the Washington, D.C., suburbs have lost up to half of their woodlands over the last 30 years. (See graph.) The continued loss of woodlands has forced many cities to adopt ordinances to protect trees from indiscriminate clearing for land development. A large number of tree protection ordinances were enacted during the 1970s. However, many of these codes did not work out. Many cities did not have adequate staff to police the protection of trees. They required developers to identify large trees on site plans but were unable to determine whether trees were actually saved Some cities also found that grading activities and utility excavations later killed those trees that were supposed to be saved. Many cities also discovered that it was politically infeasibleto adopt strong ordinances that might stop development or require modifications of plans in order to protect trees. The second generation of tree protection ordinances simplifies the process of tree preservation and goes further than the 1970s codes. The cities featured below all have good tree preservation programs. They all conduct inspections, many have staff or consulting arborists, and all have experience in the administration of tree protection codes. Lake Forest, Illinois This affluent suburb on Chicago's North Shore has taken tree preservation seriously for a long time. For the last nine years, it has been designated a "Tree City" by the National Arbor Day Foundation. In 1987, the city's tree protection program gained national attention following a fight between Mr. T, the television actor, and the city council. Immediately after moving to Lake Forest, Mr. T chopped down over 100 oak trees on his estate, reportedly to relieve allergies. The city council condemned the action as "outrageous destruction." At the time, Lake Forest's tree preservation code applied only to new developments and, therefore, did not apply to Mr. T's property. The city's code now prohibits the mass removal of trees from all new building sites and controls the removal of existing trees from front yards within 35 feet of the road right- of-way. The controls on clearing of construction sites apply to all of the city's buildable lots and to the protection of all trees at least 12 inches in diameter at breast height. Trees may be removed in a "construction area" that includes the building JANUARY 1989 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION envelope, driveways, and utility lines. Builders must stake out a building envelope plus 20 feet, accessways, and areas for utility trenches. All large trees outside of this area must be preserved. To protect existing trees, the city's code establishes a "preservation area" extending 35 feet in depth along any lot line facing a public street. Permits are required for the removal of any trees 12 inches in diameter or larger within this area. Permits may be granted if the tree is diseased, dead, or dying, or if tree preservation would create an economic hardship on the property owner. Even if such permits are granted, the owner may be required, at the discretion of the director of parks, forestry, and public works, to replace those trees removed with others no less than four inches in diameter. Fulton County, Georgia The county board of commissioners adopted a tree preservation ordinance in 1985. The code applies to all new development except for single-family home construction. According to Edward Macie, Fulton County Arborist, the ordinance has been highly effective in protecting thousands of existing trees and requiring the planting of tens of thousands of new trees -- According to Macie; flexibility has been the key ingredient to the county's protection program. As code administrator, he Acres of Trees in Selected Areas of Suburban Washington 200 150 100 5o 0 Anne Arundel County Prince Georges County Fairfax County O\ 000 CT, ON a i V, VD Vm OS T ON • • i 0! - cf. VI 00 rn o. ON Source: U.S. Forest Service de has been given discretion in negotiating which trees must be protected and which may be removed. The code does not require that all trees be preserved, but, when trees are removed, they must be replaced. The tree protection criteria apply to any land -clearing, grading, or construction activities. Tree protection and landscape plans must be submitted with other construction plans and must show which trees will be preserved, methods of guarding trees during construction, proposed utility trenches, and areas to be graded or landscaped. The protection of trees does not end with the submission of plans in Fulton County. Construction activities must be altered to limit the amount of grading or clearing within the vicinity of protected trees. These trees must be fenced off to keep heavy equipment from inadvertently damaging a tree's root system. The protected area includes all the area beneath the tree's canopy drip line. The drip line is a vertical line extending from the outer surface of a tree's branch tips down to the ground. Hilton Head Island, South Carolina Hilton Head's ordinance is geared not only to preserving trees but also to maintaining the diversity of tree species on the island. Developers are required to do a complete count of all trees on a site and document their size and species. The results of the count are used to calculate the number of trees that must be preserved, based on a minimum standard of 900 adjusted caliper inches of trees per acre of pervious surface area. The ordinance also establishes the mix of species that must be retained on the site. The island's goal is to maintain the approximate composition of tree species that existed on the undisturbed site. For example, a developer cannot destroy a stand of oak trees unless there are enough remaining hardwoods to provide the appropriate balance of hardwood trees to the other types of trees on the site. The town's code also addresses the problem of lots that were cleared of trees years ago but never developed. Developers of these sites are required to plant trees to meet a minimum number of tree caliper inches per acre. Finally, the ordinance requires individual homeowners to maintain the trees on their lot. Sally Krebs, the town's natural resource coordinator, spends two days a week doing inspections of sites. "If a tree dies or is hit by a car, it's got to be replaced—period." Agoura Hills, California In response to the removal of vast numbers of oak trees in Los Angeles County, the city of Agoura Hills passed strict oak preservation guidelines that prevent even the pruning of oak tree limbs larger than two inches in diameter without an oak tree permit. The ordinance also requires a permit for the removal of any oak tree Susan Kelsey, Agoura Hills' oak tree consultant, notes that the planning commission will approve removal only when reasonable use of the site would be completely inhibited by preservation of the trees. Four new oaks must be planted for each oak that is removed. During construction, all oak trees must be surrounded by a five -foot -high chain link fence placed at least 15 feet beyond the trunk. If a proposed building or sidewalk encroaches into this protection zone, the city's oak tree consultant must be on the site at all times that work in the protected zone is being done. In some cases, buildings have had to be redesigned during construction in order to save oaks. Kelsey points out that "over the last 100 years, there's been incredible, intentional devastation of the oaks. Now, we've recognized the importance of saving our natural resources." West Bloomfield Township and Novi, Michigan In Michigan, communities are taking steps to preserve woodland areas. West Bloomfield Township and Novi have designated woodland areas on official woodland maps. Development that takes place in these areas must comply with the woodlands protection ordinance. In West Bloomfield, the extent to which development may encroach into the woodland area depends on the ecological sensitivity of the area. For each proposed development, the township's woodland review board determines a "tolerance point"—the number of trees that can be removed without destroying the woodland character of the site. In areas that have excellent soils and are populated by fast- growing species of trees, the board may permit the removal of up to 50 percent of the trees on the site. However, in delicate ecological areas, the board may restrict this removal to only 10 percent of the total number of trees. Novi s ordinance protects woodland areas by reducing required lot sizes and allowing cluster development when the majority of the property is within a bona fide woodland area. For example, in the town's residential estate district, the required lot sizes can be reduced from one acre to one-third acre where wooded areas will be preserved. Both the West Bloomfield and Novi ordinances impose monetary penalties on property owners found to have violated the woodland protection regulations. West Bloomfield also requires that developers post a bond equal to $60 per tree on the site as a condition of site plan approval. If the developer destroys trees in excess of the number allowed, the bond money is devoted to supplemental landscaping of the site. Tom Bird, planning director for West Bloomfield, says that this step is taken as a last resort. The best enforcement mechanism is to maintain a vigilance on the property throughout the development process." In recent years, communities have developed sophisticated approaches to protecting trees from both the bulldozer and the overly exuberant residential tree pruner. Recent codes demonstrate innovation and flexiblity in land development regulations in the interest of preserving trees. The tree ordinance in Bellevue, Washington, permits up to a 10 percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the retention of over 15 percent of the significant trees on site. In Orlando, Florida, the city council may require a proposed subdivision to cluster homes in order to protect the trees on site. Finally, Pleasant Hill, California, has found that public relation techniques, such as the awarding of tree preservation plaques, greatly enhance public support for tree protection. Lake County, Ill,, Adopts Performance Zoning Last month, Lake County adopted a new performance zoning ordinance for the 200 square miles of unincorporated land in the county. In a 20 to 3 vote, the county board endorsed the controversial ordinance that has been over five years in the making. The performance zoning concept was introduced in Lake County by Lane Kendig, the county's former director of planning. The model ordinance that appears in Kendig's 1980 book, Performance Zoning, was originally prepared for adoption in Lake County. However, the county delayed approval of the new zoning code because of the objections of a number of municipalities.