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