Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-28 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 28, 1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Jerry Allred, Kenneth Pummill, Charles Nickle, Jett Cato and Joe Tarvin Jack Cleghorn and J.S. Springborn Traci Paul, Don Bunn, Patti Erwin, all members of the Landscape Beautification Committee, members of the press and others Mr. Nickle called the meeting to order and advised that item 2 on the agenda, Discussion of the proposed Tree Ordinance, would be moved to the last item. MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 1992 were approved as corrected. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CROSS STREET SERVICES CHUCK WEBB- S OF VAN ASCBE, E OF HWY 112 The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for Cross Street Services, presented by Chuck Webb, for property located on the south side of Van Asche, east of Highway 112. The property contains 2.67 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained the development would be a garage service center, specifically office space and U. S. Mail storage. He noted there were no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the plat review meeting. Mr. Bunn advised the City had asked for a 30 -foot easement across the front of the property for construction of a 36 -inch water line planned for 1993. He noted there had also been a question about the number of parking spaces which would be required. Mr. Bunn stated approval of the large scale development was recommended to the Planning Commission by the Subdivision Committee. He recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; a contract for the construction of a sidewalk after the completion of the 36 -inch water line; the granting of a 30 -foot easement, by separate instrument, for the construction of the 36 -inch water line; and the approval of a grading plan and drainage plan for the site. Mr. Chuck Webb stated he did have the easement, signed by the property owner. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. � 90 FINAL PLAT - WALNUT PARK ADDITION, PHASE II DON JOHNSTON & DAVID JOHNSON - W OF SALEM, N OF PRINCETON The next item was a final plat for Walnut Park Addition, Phase II, submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Don Johnston and David Johnson for property located on the west side of Salem Road, north of Princeton. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 5.1 acres with 23 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn stated the development would be single-family homes even though the property was zoned R-2. He explained there had been no significant comments at the plat review meeting nor the subdivision committee meeting. He advised Randy Allen, Street Superintendent, had reminded the developer of the need to provide handicap access at all street corners and the Planning Management Director had requested the sidewalks be set back from the curb, if possible. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; construction of sidewalks and the payment of parks fees per city ordinances; the execution of a contract with the City for the unfinished improvements, including street lights; and a notation on the plat of the restriction of the subdivision to single family homes. Mr. Harry Gray concurred with staff comments. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU92-24 - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (COUNSELING) BRONSON STILLWELL - 358 ARKANSAS AVENUE The next item was a request for approval of Conditional Use CU92-24 to allow a professional office (counseling) to be located at 358 Arkansas Avenue. The request was submitted by John Faucette on behalf of Bronson Stillwell and property owner Bob Kelly. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the request was for a psychiatrist office in an R-3 zone. He then read Ms. Little's report, as follows: "This property is an existing building located on three lots in Block 2 of Gregg's Addition located at the northeast intersection of Lafayette Street and Arkansas Avenue. Most previously this building was occupied by a fraternity. As shown in the attached minutes from the Board of Adjustments meeting held September 21, 1992, a variance to allow this use in an R-3 zone on less than the required one acre minimum was unanimously approved conditioned upon the paving of the existing parking lot. "Square footage in the building totals approximately 3600 square feet requiring under code, 12 parking spaces. The plan calls for provision of 15 spaces which is adequate. The applicant states that he intends to use the majority of the building for professional offices - his as well as others to whom he would lease space - and that he also intends to maintain one apartment in the building. The maintenance of one or more apartments in the building is a use by right in the R-3 zone. "Due to location of the R-3 zone, Use Unit 25, Professional Offices, is only allowable upon appeal to the Planning Commission. The applicant has sought first the variance from bulk requirements from the Board of Adjustment and is now seeking a conditional use from the Planning Commission. "RECOMMENDATION: 111 • Planning Commission September 28,1992 Page 3 "Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use, conditioned upon the paving the parking area and the provision of two handicapped parking spaces. This use is less intensive than the previous use which existed harmoniously in that area for a number of years. The applicant is reminded that all remodeling must be coordinated through the Building Inspection Division and that appropriate permits must be obtained prior to the initiation of any work." Mr. John Faucette stated he had spoken with surrounding property owners of the subject property and had heard no objections. He stated the apartment would be maintained for security reasons in order to have someone live on the site. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Faucette stated two or three single -room offices would be leased. Mr. Allred asked, if the conditional uee was granted, would it limit the other offices to psychiatry. Mr. Bunn stated it would have to be a specific type use. He further stated he believed the Planning Commission could approve the entire building for use as professional offices in a residential zone. He explained that would be defined in the code book. He further advised the Commission could limit the number of different businesses within the building. He pointed out it depended upon the request -- if it was requested as only psychiatrists offices, then only psychiatrists could rent space; but, if the request was for professional offices, then various professional offices could rent space. After discussion, it was determined notice • for professional offices, not specifically Mr. Tim Boots appeared in opposition to the area was residential and the residents had the children might play in the parking lot cause more traffic. • to the adjoining property owners was a psychiatrist. conditional use. He pointed out the many children. He expressed concern and that professional offices would Mr. Bunn stated that, after reviewing the definition of a professional office per city code, he would recommend the use be restricted to psychiatrists offices. Mr. Faucette pointed out professional offices would be a less intense use than its use previously. He stated there would be a lot less noise, especially at night, and less traffic. Ms. Britton expressed her belief the conditional use should be limited to no more than one other office beside the one specified and the conditional use be reviewed in one year if there were complaints. Mr. Bunn asked, if they approved the conditional use allowing one more office, would the use of that office be left to the discretion of city staff. Ms. Britton suggested related use to the psychiatrist office. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the conditional use with one other office being allowed beside the one requested, that it be used for a related use and subject to any other staff comments, if any. Mr. Pummill pointed out renting one office to an rule out that rental. the applicant had, at a previous meeting, discussed insurance agent. He stated Me. Britton's motion would • • • Planning Commission September 28,1992 Page 4 In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Faucette stated the building contained 3,600 square feet. Mr. Tarvin stated that was a great deal of space for two offices. Dr. Stillwell stated that, at the present time, the building was divided into four separate apartments. He further stated he had envisioned dividing the building into four separate sections, ane of which could be an apartment for security reasons. Mr. Tarvin stated an apartment and three offices seemed much leas intense than a fraternity house. Ms. Britton stated she had no objection to three offices but she did not like it open-ended. She preferred they specify a use for at least one other office. She further stated she was hesitant since she did not know what the other offices would be; that professional offices was a wide use unit. Mr. Bunn explained the application was for use as professional offices and was not restricted to a psychiatrist's office. He further stated that, in looking at the original application, the recommendation by the Planning Management Director had included anything coming under Use Unit 25, Professional Offices. He expressed his belief that, in looking at the uses, they were not equal uses as far as potential intrusions upon a neighborhood. He further stated he believed it would be reasonable to restrict those uses to something comparable -- a business -type situation and not the possibility of a veterinarian clinic, etc. Ms. Britton stated some of the uses, such as an interior decorator or welfare agency, could be commercial uses. Mr. Bunn stated he believed Use Unit 25 was far too broad to approve. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Dr. Stillwell stated he did not know to what other professions he would be renting; however, he owned another building which was leased to an engineer and attorneys. He stated he had also rented to an insurance agent. He pointed out that, since his office would also be located at that site, he did want the building to be nice. He stated he planned on limiting leasing to other compatible professions. He assured the Commission he would not rent space to a veterinary clinic. Mr. Nickle suggested the Commission restrict the space to professions of a compatible nature with a psychiatry office and let the Planning Director determine if it was compatible. Mr. Allred suggested limiting it to medical or psychological. Me. Britton stated that would not allow engineers or architects. Mr. Bunn stated it should be compatible in terms of the intensity of the use. Mr. Allred pointed out the previous motion died for lack of second. NOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the conditional use to allow three offices plus an apartment and that the use be restricted to professional offices compatible to a psychiatrist office. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. X93 • • • Planning Commission September 28,1992 Page 5 Mr. Bunn asked if the motion included staff comments and Board of Adjustment comments. Mr. Tarvin stated it did. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE The next item on the agenda was a public hearing for discussion and approval of the Tree Protection Ordinance as drafted by the Landscape Beautification Committee. Me. Erwin stated the Landscape Beautification Committee members were selected to represent all areas of the community in the development of the ordinance. She explained the committee has worked very hard drafting the Tree Protection Ordinance since December, 1991. She further stated all of the meetings have been open to the public for any comments or suggestions. Ms. Erwin introduced Fred Hanna to give the Commission an overview of the ordinance. Mr. Hanna stated the City of Fayetteville proposed Tree Protection Ordinance, draft eight, originated in December of 1991, with the committee meeting once and sometimes twice a month. The committee began with 11 members and had good attendance by eight members to represent the committee. He continued that the committee looked at every part of the ordinance several times, realizing a similar ordinance had been presented and failed in 1986. He further stated the committee tried to develop an ordinance that would be satisfactory to all factions in the City of Fayetteville and not cause undo hardships yet include means of protecting trees. Mr. Hanna explained the meetings have been attended by citizens; all the meetings had been attended by reporters from both newspapers with good coverage; and the committee had received a few letters from citizens. He stated the committee had defined and redefined various parts of the ordinance and did the best job they could do. Mr. Hanna concluded the charge of the committee was to present a Tree Protection Ordinance that was fair and acceptable. Mr. Hanna asked if the commission had any questions for him. Mr. Nickle asked how unique a tree protection ordinance was to other municipalities in the state or the surrounding area. Mr. Hanna explained the committee had copies of tree protection ordinances from a number of different cities presented to them. He stated they were quite common and he understood that Bentonville and Rogers had tree ordinances. He further stated the City of Fayetteville had one included in their new 2010 plan but he was not sure where it was at this time. Mr. Nickle said he understood that a member of the power company was on the committee and thought that would be the one utility most affected by the ordinance. He asked if the impact to underground utilities had been taken into consideration. Mr. Hanna stated the ordinance addressed all public rights-of-way, easements and set back areas and, if a utility company disturbed any trees when they put down lines, they would have to replace them. Ms. Britton pointed out that utility easements were not necessarily rights-of-way but utility easements. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Hanna explained the ordinance addressed all new development and would go through plat review and subdivision. • • Planning Commission September 28,1992 Page 6 He further stated he was sure the Planning Division would have their representative, Patti Erwin, present at those meetings. Mr. Tarvin asked if the proposed ordinance would stop the utility companies from working in easements where the tree was registered. Ms. Erwin explained the city had completed their street tree inventory and would be putting that information on computer by address; at that time residents would be able to register landmark and rare trees. She further explained the registry would help to protect trees, such as the Black Oak Mr. Tarvin described, by requiring or asking the utility company to install the line in another location because of the registered tree. Me. Britton asked how the city could impose their regulations in a utility right- of-way. Mr. Tarvin said the easement belonged to the property owner. Ms. Erwin explained one goal of the ordinance was to educate the community on the proper selection of trees for the future, such as what tree species could handle some root pruning. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Hanna explained the proposed ordinance would not impact the homeowner except in street rights-of-way. Mr. Nickle asked if it would keep someone from planting a tree or cutting a tree down. Mr. Hanna explained that would not occur unless it was in the street right-of- way. Mr. Cato asked if the ordinance had been applied to any property currently being developed to see what effect it would have. Mr. Hanna explained they had not applied the proposed ordinance however, the ordinance drafted in 1986 had been tested in that manner. He stated each case was different with various percentage requirements for retaining trees. Mr. Tarvin and Ms. Britton noted the trees on the Hathcock property were gone. Mr. Hanna explained the ordinance would have required a percentage of the trees to be saved according to the zoning district. Mr. Suchecki asked if the percentage meant the number of trees or the canopy. He further asked if there was a large shade tree with an ultimate canopy of 1000 square feet it meant in new development there would be a minimum of 250 square feet saved from the tree canopy or if it meant that they would leave 25% of the acreage. Mr. Hanna replied it was the acreage. Mr. Suchecki asked if a person developed 10 acres with numerous shade trees would 2 1\2 acres be left undeveloped. Mr. Hanna replied 25% of the canopy would have to be saved. He stated the City Horticulturist would need to inspect the lot to determine whether the lot had a full canopy. Mr. Nickle asked, if the existing tree canopy did not meet the percentage required, would a person be required to plant trees. • • • Planning Commission September 28,1992 Page 7 Mr. Hanna stated the ordinance was for preservation of existing trees but the committee hoped it would encourage people to plant trees. Ms. Britton said she had a problem with the percentage table. She gave as an example the lot across the street from her home which was 140 x 120 or 16,800 square feet and, at 25%, 4.2 trees would be required to be preserved. She expressed her opinion that 4.2 trees would not be adequate. Me. Erwin asked if she was referring to saving 4 oak trees with a 1,000 square foot canopy each. Me. Britton said the lot had over 100 mature trees and, with that many trees on a lot that size, the trees would not develop mature canopies. Ms. Erwin explained if 4.2 trees satisfied the 1,000 square foot canopy, the requirement would be met. Ms. Britton stated they would never reach the 1,000 square feet because they were so crowded. She stated that there seemed to be a flaw in the percentage section. Mr. Pummill stated some people did not want trees and he asked about the justification. Mr. Allred stated he had residential lots; and two, ordinance. He explained he to shift a street in order a variance for the smaller incorporated into the tree two comments: one, the ordinance did not address how flexible would other ordinances be with the tree had previously developed a subdivision and had wanted to save some trees; however, he was unable to obtain lot size. He asked how a similar situation would be protection ordinance. Ms. Erwin explained the ordinance included a section to provide variances or waivers in the planning process. Mr. Allred said he did not think it was broad enough and asked if the variance would be granted by staff or the Planning Commission. Ms. Erwin explained sentence D. in Section X. Tree Protection read: "Notwithstanding any provision of the Zoning Code to the contrary, saving of a rare or specimen tree or a tree shown to be significant to the site, shall constitute sufficient evidence that Section 160.174 of the Zoning Code has been met in any variance application." Mr. Allred expressed his belief the ordinance needed to be reviewed by the City Attorney. He explained that, whenever a home was on a substandard lot, a variance could be granted to ensure that a title insurance company would be able to issue title insurance. Mr. Nickle asked Mr. Bunn how the ordinance would impact a street widening project; if the ordinance had been reviewed from that standpoint. Mr. Bunn stated that it would impact most street widening projects. He further stated he presumed a decision would have to be made as to which carried more weight - the trees or the street widening. He further stated, in the case of Township, City Staff planned to replant at least one tree for every tree taken out. Mr. Bunn explained sometimes there was enough flexibility to go around the trees, especially in new construction. In response to a question from Mr. Cato, Ms. Erwin said an appeal would go to the Landscape Beautification Committee first for their review and then, if it was a subdivision, it would go to the Planning Commission. She further explained if )949 • • Planning Commission September 28,1992 Page 8 the appeal was for a variance, it would go to the Board of Adjustment and ultimately it could go the City Board of Directors. Mr. Nickle stated the Planning Commission appreciated the Landscape Beautification Committee members attending the meeting. Mr. Nickle asked how the responsibility for the protected trees transferred to the individual property owner when they purchased a lot. Ms. Erwin explained it was the property owner's responsibility to take care of the trees. She further explained it was the property owner's choice if they wanted to save the trees. Ms. Erwin said the committee concluded that most people building a home on a residential lot want to save as many trees as possible and they did not see that as the problem. Mr. Nickle asked if the subdivider saved the required amount of trees, the individual property owner could elect to remove a tree. Me. Erwin said the committee was trying to educate the developer on how to correctly save trees so that when the property owner did buy a lot covered with trees, the trees would still be alive in years to come. Mr. Nickle asked if the proposed ordinance was more restrictive or less restrictive compared to other ordinances of neighboring cities. Ms. Erwin said it was a little of both. She stated that each city had different problems and each ordinance was unique to the situation in each city. Mr. Tarvin asked Mr. Gray, an engineer, if it would be the engineer's responsibility to protect enough trees on each lot to meet the minimum canopy requirement when developing a subdivision. He expressed concern that it could become too complicated. Mr. Gray stated in residential development almost all developers wanted to save trees. He discussed the problem of incorporating all the needed improvements and saving trees too. He said he felt that having an option for a variance would help alleviate the problem. He also mentioned the utility companies wanted a 20' to 25' easement which they normally cleared. He suggested perhaps they could have a smaller easement or install lines around the trees when possible. The Commission questioned whether an individual could clear land in various zoning districts. Mr. Miklos, a member of the Landscape Beautification Committee, explained could clear their property if it was not for development, except for the rights-of-way and the easements; but, if it was for development, then 25% of the tree canopy for the total area must be preserved. Ms. Kate McCullah, a representative of the Ozark Headwaters Group of the Sierra Club stated they would support an ordinance to preserve the beauty of the city. She said the group had a few points they felt needed to be addressed: 1) a definition for large scale development; 2) require assurance for the maintenance of new replacement trees and that new property owners maintain trees that were saved; 3) the penalty needed to be more specific for a separate offense and increase the penalty for a rare or landmark tree to $1,000 each; 4) Section XIII's wording was too vague and would result in pointless arguments. Ms. McCullah also asked that the new committee have more representatives from the environmental community. 19 7 • • • Planning Commission September 28,1992 Page 9 In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Me. McCullah stated her organization was represented on the committee that developed the ordinance. Mr. Allred said the questions should have been addressed during the drafting of the ordinance. He further stated that, as the ordinance was presented, it gave the property owner some rights but her group's suggestions would not give the property owner any rights. He asked her how it could be balanced. Ms. McCullah said property owners. restriction was a landowner. they were not talking about existing land owners but new She stated what they would like instead of a one time deed covenant with the land, to be binding on each subsequent Mr. Allred said if a person bought a clear the lot. lot and did not like trees they could not Ms. McCullah said the person would have known that when he read the covenant. Mr. Allred explained that, in order to have a tree ordinance, the city needed a successful balance. He explained the Commission considered a large scale development to be anything over an acre. Mr. Nickle said in the zoning ordinance there was a very specific definition for large scale development and he did not see that as a problem. Ms. Britton stated that, in regard to Ms. McCullah's statement about more representation for a particular interest group, she felt there should be more at large representation for the Landscape Beautification Committee. Mr. Tarvin agreed. Mr. Nickle said in the past the City Board had been able to reappoint Commission members fairly. Mr. Allred recommended that a cost analysis with cost for staff, equipment, and vehicles for inspection, accompany the Tree Protection Ordinance for the City Board. Ms. Britton said one horticulturist could not possibly do everything the ordinance covered, and gave as an example controlling the people who prune trees. Ms. Erwin explained the ordinance required individuals pruning trees to keep their permit with them at each job site. She stated it was a situation like anything else that was inspected; sometimes things were missed but people did call the Planning Department to report violations. She further stated they would not catch every person who did not have their permit but the committee hoped that citizens would be made aware of the permit and what it represented. Ms. Britton said she felt it should be on a volunteer basis so the individual could use their permit as leverage for being hired. She further stated an oral exam was not worthwhile and individuals who already knew proper pruning procedures should take a written exam. Ms. Erwin stated the committee left the option open for written verses oral exams. She said it would depend on the person giving the workshop and whether they felt the participants understood proper pruning procedures and needed to take an exam. Mr. Pummill asked who would be administering the workshop. • • • Planning Commission September 28,1992 Page 10 Ms. Erwin stated she would administer the workshop but might have individuals from the university assist as they had in the past. Mr. Nickle asked if Rogers and other surrounding cities with a Tree Ordinance had a horticulturist. Ms. Erwin replied they did not but Rogers was trying to get one. Mr. Nickle asked how they managed their ordinance. Me. Erwin explained they had one person who wore several hats. Mr. Allred asked how the ordinance would work in regard to the tree trimming permit requirement after a severe storm with a number of damaged trees. He further asked if it would be enforced at that time. Ms. Erwin said a situation such as that could be more dangerous and people would be required to know what they were doing, so the ordinance would be enforced. She stated the type of pruning that might take place could be different in that situation and they might not be able to follow the exact guidelines as described in the ordinance. Mr. Allred asked if individuals coming from out of town to do the work would be required to have some type of training and if there would be some type of education for property owners so they would know to ask about the permit. Ms. Erwin said the committee would like to make citizens aware of the permit system at events such as Arbor Day. Mr. Nickle said he was still uncertain about how the ordinance would apply to current residential lots in relation to trimming and cutting trees. He asked if a person could have someone cut or trim a tree for them. Ms. Erwin explained, if the tree was in the right-of-way or if the tree was registered, they would need permission. Ms. Hill, a member of the Landscape Beautification Committee, said the committee spent 3 months on this topic and the goal for the permit process was for the city and the homeowner to have a good stand of trees. She stated at times there would be exceptions when there were storms, but for general everyday trimming the homeowner would know who was qualified and know what they were doing. She said the permit was to insure standard quality work by tree trimmers. Mr. Nickle said he could appreciated the time the committee spent because he assisted with the grading and excavation ordinance and it seemed to take forever. He said he realized that there might need to be some changes in the future and that Ms. Erwin would be able to streamline her duties. Mr. Cato said they needed to start somewhere. MOTION Mr. Allred made the motion to approve the Tree Protection Ordinance and send it to the City Board with the cost analysis that he mentioned earlier. Mr. Suckecki seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 199