Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-08 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 8, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickle, J. E. Springborn, Kenneth Pummill, Joe Tarvin, Bob Reynolds, Jett Cato and Jerry Allred OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the February 22, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - RETAIL DEVELOPMENT CEI ENGINEERING - S OF W. 6TH, W OF FARMERS DR. The next item on the agenda was a Large Scale Development presented by Tim Sorey, CEI Engineering for property located on the south side of West Sixth Street, west of Farmer's Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and A-1, Agricultural, and contains 26.46 acres. Mr. Bunn explained the utility company representatives had no significant comments on the development at the plat review meeting. He further explained most had been contacted beforehand and were familiar with the project. He noted there had been some easements and crossings requested and agreed to by the owner. He advised staff comments had included (1) the need for a fire hydrant near the sprinkler connections; (2) the need to work with the Parks Department on screening for Finger Park; (3) the need for a drainage and grading plan; (4) the need for a wetlands determination from the Corps of Engineers; and (5) off-site improvements. He stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the Large Scale Development with little comment. Mr. Bunn recommended the Large Scale Development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; construction of sidewalks in accordance with City ordinance; working with the Parks Department in screening for Finger Park; improvement of the entire width of Finger Road to City standards, up to the entrance on Finger Road; and a wetlands determination by the Corps of Engineers. In response to a question from Ms Britton, Mr. Bunn stated Finger Road would be a 31 -foot, two-lane street. Mr. Tim Sorey, CEI Engineering, explained there was a traffic signal proposed at the intersection of Highway 62 and Finger Road with lane requirements being completed by a traffic engineer. He advised he believed there would be three lanes at that intersection. 31 • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 2 Ms. Britton expressed her believed there should be two left -turn lanes at the intersection. Mr. Sorey explained that would be determined from the traffic study being conducted by the traffic engineer. Mr. Charles Morman, a Finger Road resident, appeared before the Planning Commission to object to the development stating the residents had not been properly notified. He further stated the subject property was a wetland and the project would cause destruction of wildlife. He advised 14 residences, together with a portion of Finger Park, would be destroyed by the construction. He also stated this would create a traffic hazard at the intersection of Finger Road and Highway 62. He requested that access to the parking lot and unloading zones be barred from Finger Road. He also requested a sight and sound barrier be constructed. He expressed his dismay that Wal-Mart was abandoning a thriving store to construct another one less than one mile away. In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little advised that proper notification had been made of the meeting. Mr. Sorey explained his company had completed an environmental assessment and a wetlands determination. He advised the environmental assessment had been approved and the wetlands assessment had shown less than .2 acres of wetlands, which had been a man made wetlands. He stated the Corps had issued a permit to fill the .2 acres of wetlands. He also explained notices had been issued regarding the meetings and the project to the adjacent property owners. Ms. Little reviewed the list of property owners who had been notified. Mr. Sorey stated there would be no demolition of any residences; the only demolition of the area would be the old theater site. He advised he had spoken with personnel on city staff on how to maintain the integrity of Finger Park and screen it from the subject development. He further advised they were showing an 8 -foot tall wooden fence and working on an arrangement to plant evergreen trees to help screen the site from the park. He stated there was a traffic study being performed which indicated a signal was needed at the intersection of Finger Road and Highway 62. He explained the plans had been through preliminary review by the State Highway Department and had initial approval. Mr. Sorey further advised special arrangements had been made along Finger Road for an eight -foot wooden fence and tree plantings to provide a sight and sound barrier for the property owned by Mr. Lefler, an adjoining property owner. • Mr. Springborn asked if Mr. Sorey cared to address the point which had been made regarding the abandonment of another location. 0a • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Sorey stated he was not at liberty to tell the Commission who his client was. He explained the abandonment of any stores in the area was not a part of this proceeding. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Sorey stated his client would pay for the cost incurred to install traffic signals at the intersection of Finger Road and Highway 62. Ms. Judy Fowler, a resident of Finger Road, requested the developer save the 13 Sweet Gum trees which lined Highway 62. She stated they were beautiful trees and provided screening. She also advised she concurred with the statements made by Mr. Morman. Ms. Britton stated she had a problem with the fence on Finger Road. She explained she found a fence to be ugly and abrasive. She advised she would prefer plant material. She expressed concern that it would affect the visibility of someone coming from the retail development onto Finger Road. Mr. Sorey pointed out the location of the proposed fence. He also showed Ms. Britton the landscaping plan for the site. Ms. Britton requested a realignment of the fence and Mr. Sorey agreed. Ms. Barbara Morman asked if anyone on the Planning Commission that owned Wal- Mart stock would be abstaining from the vote. She asked if anyone on the Commission owned Wal-Mart stock. Mr. Suchecki advised her that had nothing to do with this particular matter. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the Large Scale Development subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 0-3 • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT - GEORGIAN PLACE TOM BAILEY - NW CORNER OF MELMAR & LEVERETT The next item was a preliminary plat for Georgian Place submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Tom Bailey for property located on the northwest corner of Melmar and Leverett Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains 5 acres with 12 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained there had been no significant issues raised at the Plat Review meeting by any of the utility company representatives. He advised SWEPCO had indicated they had a 100 -foot easement on Leverett Street, 50 feet of which was on the subject property. He stated other utility company representatives asked for several easements and pipe crossings which had been agreed to by the owner. He stated staff had indicated a need to restrict the number of access points onto Melmar because of an existing parking problem caused by the Melmar Apartment. Mr. Bunn explained the Subdivision Committee discussion had centered on the parking problem that existed because of the Melmar Apartments and how the subject development might relate to that problem. He noted had it had been determined the developer should limit to the degree possible the number of curb cuts along Melmar. He also advised a citizen of the area had cited a drainage problem which was directly related to the development to the west and wanted assurances that this development would not cause another problem. He explained the drainage plans submitted indicated the drainage would be going to the east and would not cause a particular problem to the north or west. He further advised Melmar was a substandard City Street, being only 25 feet wide. He stated the developer would need to bring Melmar up to City Street standards. Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a final grading plan and approval of the detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in accordance with City ordinances; the minimization of curb cuts on Melmar Drive; and bringing Melmar up to City Street standards. Ms. Britton asked if staff would still require a limit to the number of curb cuts on Melmar since it would be widened. She stated she did not understand how there could be less curb cuts than one per unit. Mr. Conklin stated he had been working with the applicant on a redesign to lessen the curb cuts on Melmar. He stated he was unable to come up with a solution. Mr. Steve Clark explained there was approximately 660 feet of frontage along Melmar and he did not see they could offer a solution to the parking problem of Melmar Apartments by reducing the number of curb cuts. 0� • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 5 In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Clark explained the development consisted of zero lot line townhouse type four-plexes with each unit having its own lot Mr. C. L. Thomas, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern regarding the drainage. Mr. Clark advised they did not have the drainage information at this time but it was not their intent to do significant grading. Mr. Bunn stated the drainage would go to the east. He further advised the drainage problems Mr. Thomas was concerned with was caused by Crafton Place. He stated he had been in touch with Tom Hopper in an effort to see what the problems were in relation to the Thomas property and get it straightened out. Mr. Nickle asked what type of drainage impact the project would have to the east. Mr. Bunn stated he had looked at the crossing under Leverett Street but nothing else had been looked at. Mr. Nickle requested staff look into the drainage to be sure it would not be causing any further problems to the east. Mr. Clark advised the Commission a large scale development had initially been approved for the subject property. He pointed out this development would be a reduction in density from the large scale development. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained staff did not go all of the way downstream when reviewing the drainage plan but did look a reasonable distance. Mr. Clark advised the requirement regarding the widening of Melmar had only been discussed earlier that afternoon. He stated he had not had an opportunity to speak to the owner regarding that requirement. He further stated he could not agree to the improvement until he had spoken with the property owner. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 15 • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE CU93-11 - TANDEM LOT BILL FUGITT - N OF KANTZ LANE, W OF BALL AVE. The next item was a request for a conditional use to allow a tandem lot, presented by Kim Fugitt on behalf of Bill Fugitt, for property located on the north side of Kantz Lane, west of Ball Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn stated the request for approval of the proposed tandem lot would be on proposed Lot 11C of the Royal Oaks Estates. He explained the lot would be created by the administrative approval of three lot splits being submitted by the owner for the original Lot 11. He noted the administrative decision as to whether to approve the splits was being delayed until a Planning Commission decision was made on the tandem lot request. He explained the lots to be created by the proposed splits ranged in size from 0.34 acres to 0.55 acres, with the tandem lot containing 0.55 acres. He advised the average size of lots in the area were: three lots immediately to the east contained 0.51 acres, eight lots south of the proposed splits contained 0.30 acres, six lots to the west of the proposed splits contained 0.28 acres and 10 lots to the north of the proposed splits contained 0.32 acres. Mr. Bunn stated the lot splits did not create lots which were incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood as far as size was concerned, nor did it appear that the proposed tandem lot created a problem. He explained that, because of the common area, there would be a 50 -foot setback on the north and a 30 -foot setback on the east rather than the normal setbacks of 20 feet all around the property. He also explained that, according to the subdivision covenants, originally lot 11 had been reserved for future development with as many as 25 units. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the conditional use for a tandem lot for proposed Lot 11C. Ms. Britton asked what happened to the common area She stated she believed a common area had to be maintained as such and open to anyone in the development. She asked how they could construct a house on a lot when over half of the lot was common area. Mr. Kim Fugitt presented a plat showing the original open space and explained there was over 100 feet of open space still existing. Ms. Britton asked if that fulfilled the requirements of the percentage of open space for a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Fugitt explained Lot 30 had been divided earlier and much of that lot had been given back to the Planned Unit Development as open space. He advised they had excess open space. • Mr. Bunn suggested that, if there was a change in the open space, it should be approved by the Property Owners Association. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Fugitt explained the common space had been Property Owners Association. Mr. Bunn stated there was still the question as to area did meet the requirements of the ordinance. deeded to Lot 11 through the whether the amount of common Mr. Tarvin stated the Commission had previously discussed the general intent of the tandem lot ordinance which had to do with the practicality of the access by topographic limitations. Ms. Little stated a tandem lot was an aberration from the standard lot configuration in a subdivision. She explained there were specific criteria for the granting of a tandem lot and read Section 160.091, Tandem Lot Development. Mr. Tarvin stated he personally had problems with tandem lots because he believed they detracted from a neighborhood. He further stated it appeared to him they were trying to avoid building a street and cul-de-sac. He advised he could see the economics of a tandem lot but was not sure it was Justified in this situation. He stated he was aware there was latitude because this was a Planned Unit Development. Ms. Little pointed out that, by the covenants, the owner could have up to 25 units on Lot 11. She further noted that, had the property owner not been creating a tandem lot, this matter would not have come before the Planning Commission because the Planning Administrator had authority to approve the lot splits. Mr. Nickle asked if the lots were to be used for single-family homes. Mr. Fugitt stated they were. He explained the planned unit development had originally been for multi -family housing and they were now reducing the density. Mr. Kevin Wilson, representing the property owners in the planned unit development, stated they had been informed the area (Lot 11) was common area and would remain common area. He advised he and the other property owners had been repeatedly told Lot 11 was common area and would remain common ground. He stated there was a conflict of interest because the chairman of the Property Owners Association owned Lot 11. He also pointed out the drainage ditch which started on the southern portion of the property and ran across to the northeast. He further advised they were also against splitting the property due to lot 11A. He advised there was a 20 -foot easement splitting the lot wide open. He noted the easement was for the water line serving Township and Royal Oaks. He also advised they had submitted a petition objecting to the tandem lot. In response to a question from Mr. Cato, Mr. Wilson stated he had been aware the covenants allowed 25 units on Lot 11 but had relied upon verbal representations In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised the covenants and enforcement of the covenants was the responsibility of the property owners and home owners association. She explained the City did require the formation of a home • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 8 owners association to assure the maintenance of the common area. She stated there was enough of a question in her mind that they should ask for a meeting of the home owners association and have more information before the Commission made a decision. She further stated she had a concern there was not the percentage of land to be left as common area as required by code. She recommended the item be tabled. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table this matter until the concerns could be addressed and reported back to the Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 9 ALLEY & R -O -W VACATION V93-4 GLENN SOWDER - TUDOR ST. & NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY S OF NORTH ST. The next item was a request from Glenn Sowder to vacate Tudor Street, west of Gregg Avenue; to vacate an unnamed street, north of Adams; and to vacate a north - south alley south of North Street. Mr. Bunn stated staff had received copies of plats showing the streets and alley to be vacated together with letters from each of the utility companies indicating their approval of the proposed vacation. He advised, however, some of the utility companies requested easements to be provided in place of the street rights-of-way. He explained a large scale development had been previously approved by the Planning Commission which covered the areas involved in this request. He noted all of the utilities were, at that time, able to request the proper easements. Mr. Bunn recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the street closings, as petitioned for, with the request that all related easements being requested by the utility companies be executed prior to presentation to the City Council Ms. Britton noted Randy Allen had expressed concern regarding access. • Mr. Bunn advised that had been approved at the time the Large Scale Development was approved. • Mr. Sowder explained the streets and alley were laid out in approximately 1921. He advised they had replaced the streets with a private drive and the utility easements were on the periphery. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to recommend the vacations of the streets and alley to the City Council for approval. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. r7 • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 10 PARKING WAIVER AND OFF-SITE PARKING APPROVAL CAL CANFIELD - 24 E. MEADOW STREET The next item was a request for a parking waiver and off-site parking approval submitted by Cal Canfield for property located at 24 East Meadow Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant was requesting the Commission waive the required off-street parking requirement and approve off-site parking within 300 feet of the structure. He stated the applicant was proposing to develop a 10,003 square foot exhibition center and concert hall and 2,568 square foot leasable area located at 24 East Meadow. He further stated a total of 143 (on-site and off-site) parking spaces had been arranged for the proposed use by various instruments. He advised the required number of on-site parking spaces was 163 for day use and 318 spaces for night use. He stated the following Planning Commission action was requested by the applicant: (1) a waiver of 128 parking spaces for day use and approval of 21 off-site parking spaces within 300 feet (total of 50 spaces provided) ; and (2) a waiver of 176 parking spaces for night use, the use of valet parking, and approval of 128 off-site parking spaces within 300 feet (total of 142 spaces provided). Mr. Conklin explained staff had only included off-site parking spaces where written permission had been granted to the applicant by the property owner for use of their parking lots. He noted the applicant's letter contained specific information regarding how parking was calculated and what parking agreements had been obtained. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested 176 parking space waiver and approval of 128 off-site parking spaces (including valet parking) within 300 feet for night use (6:00 p.m. or later) and to allow day use only on weekends and national holidays . He explained staff believed the majority of the parking problems occurred during weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 6 00 p.m. when downtown professional offices were open. He noted additional night uses in the downtown area would benefit other businesses open later at night and would help promote the downtown area as a viable commercial area. Ms. Britton asked what type of agreement the Hilton had in regard to the parking garage. Ms. Little advised most of the spaces in the parking garage had been leased by the Hilton for required parking for their patrons. She explained the second floor had been entirely leased to the legal community of the downtown area. She stated this area had not been included in the counted parking spaces because there had been previous problems of people leaving their cars overnight and the space not being available to the lessees in the morning. Ms. Britton asked how the applicant could keep patrons from using the parking garage. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Cal Canfield, architect for the petitioner, stated his client had offered to police the city parking garage to be sure patrons did not park there. He noted they would have people posted in the alley to keep people from using the parking garage together with notices posted that they would be subject to being towed. Mr. Nickle asked if they had any idea of how many people would be attending functions at the subject site. Mr. Canfield stated they had the opportunity for 1,296 patrons for nighttime use. He advised his client had also offered to limit the daytime occupancy to half that amount. He stated they would prefer not to limit the daytime occupancy but would do so if required. Mr. Conklin advised the city staff had worked with the applicant to determine the occupant loads for the building. Mr. Nickle pointed out that, if the patrons came two to a car, over 600 parking spaces would be required. Mr. Canfield stated they had estimated four patrons per car. Mr. Allred pointed out that, if a group wanted to rent the building for the day, it would be rented. He stated he did not believe the applicant would limit the number of patrons during the day. He further pointed out there was already a problem in finding downtown parking during the daytime hours. Ms. Britton asked where the daytime parking would be located. Mr. Canfield stated there were 29 spaces on-site with 21 spaces at the Goodyear Building, directly adjacent. He advised that was through stacking the vehicles and providing valet parking. He further noted they were not counting any city parking spaces even through there were two municipal lots, containing over 400 spaces, and the parking garage, containing 200 parking spaces and the meters on the street. He stated they needed to realize there was a downtown building containing 20,000 square feet sitting empty. He asked if they wanted the building to sit empty. He asked if they were going to limit downtown business growth because they could not provide parking. He stated the problem would just get worse. He pointed out they were competing with three other communities in attracting businesses and the community which provided the amenities would get the businesses. Mr. Suchecki asked if they were talking about 2-3 day conventions or just one day. Mr. Canfield explained most of the daytime events would be similar to the Home Show which started on Friday and went through the weekend. He stated they believed the primary user would be the Hilton Hotel. He further stated they needed the space to compete with the Holiday Inn. He stated the City was losing business because they could not accommodate people. He further noted they were still negotiating with businesses for additional parking. 4/ • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 12 Mr. John Davidson, general manager of the Hilton Hotel, explained originally he believed the exhibit space could be used but, after research, found it would not be used by the Hilton often. He expressed concern regarding the policing of the parking garage. He stated it would have to be done 24 -hours a day and in a manner which would not interrupt the flow of the hotel customers. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Davidson stated the hotel had one club. Mr. Reynolds asked if the applicant had applied for a beer and wine permit. Mr. Canfield stated they had not. He explained they would use a picnic permit (on an as -needed basis). Mr. Mark Risk, 118 North East Avenue, stated he had several concerns regarding approval of this request. He stated he would like to see something done with the Hatfield Building but nothing which would burden the adjoining property owners. He agreed parking was a major concern in the downtown area and expressed fear patrons of the building would use his parking area. He also expressed concern that the alleyway would be blocked by the valet parking. He stated it appeared to him they were constructing a bar similar to River City. He asked what type of protection he had as a property owner to keep people from coming on his property at night. He pointed out the entire area was offices and he did not believe the proposed use was in character with the remaining area. Mr. Canfield stated there would be no parking in the alley and the owner had agreed to police the alley. He further informed the Commission that at night the alley would be used for valet parking. Mr. Springborn stated Fayetteville had provided substantial additional parking since the Walton Arts Center had been constructed. He further noted the Commission had waived parking requirements for businesses in the vicinity of the Arts Center. He stated he had been watching the development of parking problems in Fayetteville for quite some time. He stated the subject property was the ideal location for a parking garage Mr. Canfield stated they had discussed that. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Canfield stated there was an overhead door for trucks to load and unload supplies and equipment. Ms. Little advised the staff had held the building permit on this particular business until the parking issue could be resolved. She stated the applicant and his representatives had worked extremely hard in trying to overcome the difficulty of parking in the area. She stated the staff was fully comfortable with the nighttime use of the building but had severe reservations regarding daytime use with the exception of weekends and national holidays. She pointed out the city parking lots were almost empty at night, weekends and national holidays so they were a parking resource which could be used. She pointed out that, by not allowing some limited 9�- • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 13 use of area parking, they would stymie the development. She further advised staff had four meetings working with the petitioner and his representatives regarding the parking. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission could review this matter in a year. Mr. Pummill pointed out the developer would be spending a great deal of money to upgrade the building. Mr. Davidson asked they include a statement in any approval that the enforcement of the parking would be done by the petitioner. Mr. Allred asked what could be done if they found the parking requirements were being violated. Ms. Little advised they could revoke the Certificate of Occupancy. She stated the applicant was very aware of the problem. Mr. Ed Christensen, one of the applicants, asked how many violations it would take to revoke the Certification of Occupancy. Ms. Little explained staff kept records on all complaints and violations; that the information would be turned over to the Planning Commission for a decision. She explained the process for filing a complaint. Mr. Cato stated it was very rare that a complaint was not made regarding the parking in the downtown area. He asked how they knew what generated a complaint. Ms . Little agreed there was a need for more parking downtown but to direct it to the City was unfair. She stated the owner of a business normally filed the complaints which came about because a certain patron was occupying a space considered to belong to the complainant. Mr. Springborn stated he believed the city had reached a point where it was not going to provide public parking in the future for private business. He further stated he believed the only way to get private development to provide parking was to let the parking problem develop. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the application as made. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to deny the waiver of 128 parking spaces for day use and approve 21 off-site parking spaces within 300 feet. 73 • • t• Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 14 Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Britton advised she had a problem with the nighttime use and also with granting use and taking it back a year later. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the waiver of the nighttime parking requirements. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. There was discussion regarding a vote relating to daytime use and another nighttime use. Mr. Conklin explained the reason there was different parking requirements between the daytime and nighttime uses was because the applicant was basing the occupancy load differently for day versus night. Mr. Allred stated he believed the applicant should come back before the Commission when they had secured all of their off-site parking. Mr. Tarvin agreed with Mr. Allred. He asked the intended use. Ms. Little advised the stated daytime use was an exhibition hall and the stated nighttime use was concerts and ballroom. Mr. Reynolds asked if there were plans for the building to be a private club at some point in the future. Mr. Christensen stated there was a small space in the front of the building which could be used for a private club. The motion carried unanimously. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 15 OTHER BUSINESS: Discussion Regarding the Proposed Tree Ordinance Mr. Suchecki reminded the Commission they had a public hearing on February 24 on the proposed tree ordinance. He stated he would open the matter up to the Commissioners regarding any comments or questions they might have resulting from the February 24th meeting. Ms. Little stated they needed to open the public meeting with the ordinance they had heard the comments on. She stated after those comments were made, they could then discuss the revised ordinance which had been an attempt from staff to incorporate previous comments into an ordinance form. She stated staff did need the Commissioners' direction. Mr. Allred stated he had asked some specific question which had not been addressed. He stated one question regarded the enforcement on the rights-of-way. He further stated that, when he made the motion to approve the ordinance in September, he did so with the provision that a complete cost analysis of the implementation and maintenance accompany their recommendation to the City Council. He stated he still had not received any cost analysis regarding the implementation and maintenance of the ordinance. Ms. Little stated staff had prepared a memo regarding the cost analysis dated February 12, 1993 which had been provided to the Commissioners for the February 24 meeting. Mr. Allred stated that was not what he considered a cost analysis but was a rough estimate of what it would cost. Ms. Little advised the memo had been included in the original agenda request to the City Council. She stated staff had attempted to follow his instructions. Mr. Pummill stated he still had his original question regarding what they were to accomplish with a tree ordinance. He stated he saw no justification in a tree ordinance. He stated they had heard a great deal of testimony on both sides agreeing there "was not a lot broken in this town". He stated the biggest problem was in public rights-of-way and utility easements and the ordinance did not address utility easements. Ms. Little explained one of the main purposes of the tree ordinance was education. She stated the reason the Mayor and the Planning Office desired a tree ordinance was to establish a standard in order to respond to landscaping plans. She explained there was currently no standard by which to judge landscaping plans which were frequently presented to the Planning Office. She also pointed out the ordinance was a tree protection ordinance and would not increase the number of trees. She stated they would like to see at least one-fourth of the trees presently in Fayetteville preserved 20 years in the future. 75 • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 16 Mr. Tarvin stated he liked trees but he did have some problem with the ordinance. He agreed with Mr. Pummill that trees that had been disfigured were trees located in existing subdivisions where the homeowner had topped his trees (which the ordinance would not affect) and in rights-of-way. He stated the ordinance did not address either of these areas. He advised they needed to address the existing problem. He stated he would like to look further into the practicality and implementing of the ordinance. He explained he did not believe he knew enough at this point to say how practical it would be to implement the ordinance as written. Ms. Patti Erwin, City Horticulturist, advised Section 7E addressed tree topping in rights-of-way. Mr. Tarvin stated he knew that but there was contradicting sentences. He stated there was one where it did not exempt utility companies and then other sentence where it seemed utility companies were exempt. Ms. Erwin advised SWEPCO had changed their tree pruning practices from topping to lateral pruning. She explained some private residents were used to tree topping and that was what they wanted. She further explained SWEPCO was in favor of the ordinance so they could use it for backing in stopping tree topping. Mr. Reynolds stated he had a problem as far as the developer taking care of the trees. He pointed out the developer and builder would be required take care of the trees and then, when the property was sold, the homeowner could cut every tree down the day he bought the property. Ms. Erwin stated they had found private home owners were not the problem, they added trees to the area and took care of the trees. She explained they were trying to accomplish protection of trees on the lot when the private homeowner purchased it. She noted they were also addressing commercial development and large scale development. Mr. Reynolds stated he drove all over the city and it was hard for him to believe the developers were abusing the city. He stated he was aware some of the developers had been condemned but overall they had planted a lot of trees. He pointed out Mr. Lindsey had planted thousands of trees. Mr. Nickle stated he was a strong supporter of a tree ordinance and wished they had an ordinance earlier. He explained he had a lot of conversations with all types of people (developers, tree pruners, tree lovers, tree haters, etc.) regarding the ordinance and found everyone had his own opinion. He stated several years earlier they had tried to blackmail or coerce developers into leaving trees or replacing with another type of tree. He pointed out there had been an increase in development in the City in the last year. He expressed his belief they needed an ordinance which gave the Commission the right to require tree preservation and/or replacement. He stated his concerns regarding the ordinance as presented was regarding the workability. He further stated Mr. Tarvin had addressed the concern adequately - - how would the ordinance be implemented. He explained that, after having been on the Subdivision Committee and the Excavation & Grading Committee, he did not /6 • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 17 believe the City needed another committee. He pointed out the Subdivision Committee had the availability of staff and believed the ordinance would be much more workable if the Subdivision Committee were the responsible entity to see the requirements of the ordinance were followed. He stated the Subdivision Committee could transmit their recommendations to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Nickle reminded the Commission he had said the Vision Project established too many committees. He further noted he did not believe in committees that had so many different ways to appoint a member, stating if the Planning Commission were appointed that way, they would never get through any business. He recommended the Beautification and Landscape Committee be replaced by the Subdivision Committee. He stated he also was very concerned regarding the requirement for a tree pruners license. He stated he believed licensing of any one segment of the community was not the business of the Planning Commission. Mr. Nickle requested they have a review of the ordinance in a year so they could better assess the ordinance. He noted that, while he had a question on how workable the ordinance was, he was willing to take a chance on getting it started. He pointed out that, after a year, they could make any corrections they felt necessary. Mr. Springborn advised he had checked at the University regarding preservation and replacement of trees. He stated the foresters at the University had told him it was not a science but an art. He explained no one lived long enough to see the trees from the time they were planted to the time they died. He stated he believed they needed the tree ordinance, essentially in the form suggested by Mr. Nickle. Ms . Britton stated the City had discussed a landscaping or tree ordinance for as long as she could remember. She explained she was very much in favor of requiring trees to be preserved and/or planted but had several reservations with the proposed ordinance. She expressed her belief that it was a "wimpy" ordinance that did not require enough to make it worth while. She further stated it was far too easy to avoid the requirements. She also expressed concern that the burden of complying with the ordinance was the City's responsibility. She stated she believed the burden of proof should be the developer's responsibility. She advised she did strongly support the tree service license. She gave as an example the area on Old Wire Road where the trees had been "topped" . She stated people who dealt in tree service preyed on people's misconception that topping a tree was good for the tree. Ms. Britton suggested the tree registration should be addressed under the Historic Preservation ordinance. She further noted that she believed a tree service license should be required but not necessarily under the proposed ordinance. She requested more work be done on the ordinance. • Mr. Suchecki stated he shared concerns with the other Commissioners: Mr. Allred's concerns regarding cost, Mr. Tarvin's concern regarding enforceability. He further 97 • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 18 stated he liked the tree registry, that he believed it would accomplish part of the intent of the ordinance. He stated he did not understand the section regarding the tree canopy. He asked if the total development was subject to the canopy area or if it was broken down by each lot being the subject of the canopy area. Ms. Erwin advised canopy was computed for the total subdivision. Mr. Suchecki asked if there was a large number of trees in one corner of the subdivision which met the percentage requirements together with 2 or 3 trees in another corner, would the developer have to save the 2 or 3 trees. Ms. Erwin explained that, if the large number of trees met the percentage requirement, the developer would not be required to save the 2 or 3 trees. She explained the goal of the ordinance was to preserve the least disturbed area. Mr. Pummill asked if the parks department took the land with the trees for the green space, would the developer would have to increase the canopy. Ms Little stated that was one of the areas that would need to be coordinated. She explained that acquisition of land by the Parks Board had to be approved by the Planning Commission. She stated it would be her recommendation that, if the land was compatible for both uses, it could be used as both; but, if the land was incompatible for both uses, the Parks Board would either have to choose other land or take money in lieu of land. Mr. Pummill stated that meant the developer could get "double -dipped". Ms. Little pointed out the developer could met the requirements by designating the trees in one corner, though it was not really the intent of the ordinance that only one area be designated. Mr. Suchecki stated this was an example of the enforcement problems. Ms. Little explained that was true for any ordinance. Mr. Allred stated he had received the memo regarding the cost analysis. He explained the document given to him was not what he was asking for. He asked in dollars what it would cost. He noted he did not want to include grant funds received because how it was paid for was irrelevant to the cost. He asked what it would cost, on an annual basis, to implement the ordinance. He stated he wanted the analysis to include down to the gasoline in the tank of the car. Ms. Little responded there would not be an increased cost since staff went to the site anyway. Ms. Britton asked someone to explain Section 12. Ms. Erwin explained that, if a developer was doing a commercial project and • preserved the required percentage of trees and then someone else would be using /g • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 19 the property as a commercial operation, they would be required to continue to preserve the trees on the site. Ms. Little reminded the Commission they had conducted two public meetings on the tree ordinance. She also noted the ordinance was the work of a Committee that had. worked for 15 months to put in place a tree ordinance, together with the work of the Planning staff and the City Attorney staff, that was both workable and enforceable. She advised she had prepared an amended version of the ordinance which incorporated comments received at the previous public hearings and from Planning Commissioners. She stated her memo, dated March 5, had added and detailed the changes to the ordinance. She reviewed the memo with the Commission. She advised the Commission she had visited with the Landscape and Beautification Committee, as late as March 5. She noted they had some extreme concerns over the deletion of their Committee. She stated she had also spoken with the Mayor regarding deletion of the Committee. She pointed out there had only been four duties assigned to the Committee, three of which were educational. Ms. Little stated she would like to see the Tree Ordinance passed and would take direction from the Planning Commission as to what method they would like to see it passed on to the City Council. She further stated there were some administration questions that would have to be worked out as they came to the individual circumstances. She pointed out this was not uncommon, that all ordinances had administrative questions which needed to be answered on a day-to-day basis. In response to a question from Ms Britton, it was determined the area on mature tree canopy had been deleted in error. Mr. Tarvin asked if there had been a reason for limiting the time for appeal to 10 days. Ms. Little explained that was a standard amount of time. Mr. Tarvin asked if the City was exempted from the ordinance. Ms. Erwin stated the City was not exempt. She stated the ordinance had originally read that it would apply to all street rights-of-way, alleys, squares, and public grounds. She explained that meant if there were trees in the way of pedestrians and vehicles, etc. , the City would have the right to prune those trees or remove them. She advised the ordinance now read "public grounds" rather than street rights-of- way, alleys, and squares. Mr. Tarvin read Section 5, paragraph D: "It shall be a violation of this ordinance to damage, destroy, or mutilate any tree on public grounds, or attach or place any rope or wire (other than one to support a young or broken tree), sign, poster, handbill or any other thing to any such tree." He asked if that section included street right-of-way. • Ms. Little stated it did and pointed out the definition of public grounds as set out in the ordinance. 99 • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 20 Mr. Tarvin stated he believed there was some contradiction between paragraphs D, E, and H. He pointed out that in "E" it was unlawful for any person to top or cut back to stubs the crown of any tree on public grounds. He asked if that included public utility companies. He stated he knew "H" addressed the utility companies. Ms. Erwin stated it did include utility companies which were on rights-of-way. Mr. Tarvin then read section H: "Trees severely damaged by storms or other causes, or certain trees under utility wires or other obstructions where required pruning practices are impractical may be exempted from this ordinance." He advised he believed the bad looking trees around town were usually in the rights-of-way. He stated that, if the ordinance was going to allow this to continue, he did not believe they were addressing the problem. Ms. Little pointed out the ordinance said "may be exempted". She explained it was the intent of the Committee was in the event there had been a severe storm or other catastrophic action which damaged the trees, there could need to be some immediate action. She pointed out in those cases it would be impractical for the City to review each tree on a case by case basis. She stated she was not sure why the term "certain trees" was included in that section. Ms. Erwin explained this was to cover situations where a certain species of tree had been growing under high line wires for a number of years and had been improperly pruned; that tree would have to be removed because it would not adapt to the new pruning methods. Mr. Tarvin stated he had a problem with paragraphs "B" and "D" under Section 7 - Hazardous Trees. He explained he did not believe that, if someone had a dead tree in his yard that was not causing any problem, the City should have the right to cut the tree and file a lien on the property. Ms. Erwin explained the ordinance stated that "when such trees constitute a hazard to life and property, or harbor insects". She further explained that, if someone had a dead tree which did not bother anyone, they would not be asked to take the tree out. Ms. Little advised the reference to harboring insects was to avoid situations similar to Dutch Elm Disease so they could remove a tree harboring insects before those insects infected an entire population of trees. Mr. Tarvin asked what would occur if a rare or landmark tree was located on an existing utility easement. He asked if that tree could be registered and protected. Ms. Erwin stated the ordinance would allow the City to ask the utility companies to spend the extra money to ensure the tree was not damaged, such as tunneling or going around the tree. She explained every situation would be different. • Ms. Little pointed out the tree would have to be registered first before it would be eligible for that type of protection. • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 21 Mr. Tarvin gave a personal example of an attempt to save a tree in a utility easement, noting Warner Cable had not followed up with the contractor. He stated there was a problem with implementation of the ordinance. Ms. Little stated they would not be able to cover every case with the ordinance. She pointed out there was unlicensed, inoperable vehicles within the city limits even though there was an ordinance against that. Mr. Tarvin also questioned whether it was possible to get a 20% canopy on a commercial development. He explained there were hills and slopes all over town and most commercial developments were leveled out. He stated most commercial property could not be developed without being filled. He pointed out this would also include resolving drainage problems by grading the property. He stated they could not preserve the trees if they disturbed the land. Ms. Little pointed out Section 9 was the Committee's attempt to answer that question. She explained that, if a tree could not be preserved, a replacement tree could be installed. Mr. Nickle stated they could sit all night and pick the ordinance apart. He expressed concern if they did not have an ordinance adopted, they would go for another year or two with another 100 developments taking place without any ordinance in effect. He pointed out National Home Center had been approved with acres and acres of asphalt but no trees. He expressed his belief that not having something was worse than having something that did not answer all of the questions . Mr. Tarvin stated it was his understanding this was an opportunity to ask questions. Mr. Suchecki advised they would hear public comments but he did not want repetition. He explained they would hear comments from those who had not spoken at the previous public hearing. Ms. Jeannie Hill, a member of the Landscaping and Beautification Committee, stated there was a new draft of the ordinance. She stated that was not the ordinance they had discussed at the last public hearing. Mr. Suchecki stated that to go over and over the same items seemed repetitious. He further stated he understood the need for the public comment but did want to limit it to people that had not previously spoken. He also requested those speaking keep their comments brief. Ms. Marion Wycoff, a member of the Landscaping and Beautification Committee, stated they had no opportunity to publicly comment on the draft the Commission was about to vote on. She further stated they wanted to voice their opinions on the new ordinance. • Mr. Pummill stated they had not determined which ordinance they would be voting on, if any. /0/ • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 22 Ms. Paulette Long, a member of the Landscaping and Beautification Committee, stated they had worked on the ordinance for 15 months, trying to take into consideration what everyone wanted in the ordinance. She stated she did not agree with their amended proposed ordinance because it took too much out of the ordinance. She pointed out they would never get 100$ agreement on one ordinance. She wanted to discuss the items which had been omitted and explain why they were important. Ms. Little stated a member of the Landscaping Committee had presented a draft which had highlighted all of the deletions and placed within it, in handwritten form, the additions . She further stated that was indicative of the amount of time the Committee had put into the ordinance and the care they had taken. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated she had reviewed the revised ordinance in a summarized form. Mr. Suchecki stated they had the original draft of February 24 and were aware of the position of the committee members. He further stated they had another ordinance which made some changes to the original ordinance and he did not know what additional public comment could bring forth other than for the sake of argument and he did not believe anything would be gained by that. Mr. Milholland stated he was representing the people who would be responsible for drafting landscaping plans should the ordinance pass. He pointed out the engineers would have an additional responsibility together with the contractors that worked in the field and the developers. He presented a petition which was neither for nor against the ordinance but was an offer of assistance. He stated they wanted to assist on the workability and practicality of implementing the ordinance. He requested the opportunity to work with the City on the ordinance. Mr. Steve Diver, a professional horticulturist, stated he had worked as the Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Horticulturist for four years and had a lot of experience in working with trees, landscapers, and professional tree trimmers. He further stated he believed the provision for providing licensing of commercial tree trimmers was reasonable and the licensing fee was minimal. He further noted he believed it was quite important to provide basic educational training for tree trimmers. He advised he did support the activities of the Beautification and Landscaping Committee in furthering the educational training for city employees and tree trimmers. Ms . Ingrid Fritsch-Faules, a professor at the University of Arkansas, spoke in favor of the ordinance. She advised the ordinance would be a benefit for the future of Fayetteville. She stated passage of the ordinance was important to the area and it was the first step. Ms. Julie Rogers, a member of the Beautification and Landscaping Committee, advised the Commission the committee would be happy to work with them. She advised if they believed there was difficulty in enforcing the ordinance, they needed to talk with the Committee about it. She stated that to pass a watered down ordinance, just to say they had an ordinance and looking at it again in a year, was bo 19- • • Planning Commission March 8, 1993 Page 23 sidestepping a very important issue and showing a lack of courage. She explained part of the reason for trying to get a tree ordinance passed in Fayetteville was to earn the City the title of "Tree City USA" . She further explained they had to demonstrate concern and understanding of preservation and protection of trees in order to be so designated. She advised Tree City USA required the passage of an ordinance and the establishment of a landscape and beautification committee. She explained the committee would serve without pay and represent all of the community with the purpose being education of the citizens. She expressed concern that the members of the Subdivision Committee would not welcome the addition of education and evaluation to their duties. She asked that the Commission pass the original ordinance. Maria Holder, a professor at the University of Arkansas, stated she would prefer the ordinance be more stringent. She advised she was originally from Austin, Texas, where there was a strong tree ordinance which was used to attract businesses. Mr. Jim Hill requested they leave the Landscape and Beautification Committee in place. He stated he believed there had been a misunderstanding regarding the original draft of the ordinance in the appeals process. He advised that had been changed and any appeals would go directly to the Planning Commission, that the Committee would be only in an advisory capacity. Ms. Joanne Teas stated she had sent all of the Commissioners letters regarding the ordinance. She spoke on the environmental impact of trees. Mr. Allred asked if their response was either to approve the original ordinance as presented, disapprove the original ordinance, or approve the modified ordinance. Mr. Suchecki explained they had the opportunity to approve and send to the City Council for approval, an ordinance dated February 24, an ordinance dated March 5, a revised version of either of those ordinances, or not take any action. MOTION Mr. Reynolds advised they needed to start someplace; that there was a lot of development occurring within the City. He further noted they could review it again in a year. He moved to accept the March 5 draft of the tree ordinance with the provision they review it in a year. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Mr. Nickle asked if that included the inadvertent omission of Number 3, Section 9. Mr. Reynolds stated it would. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.