Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-27 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 27, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Approval of Minutes Approved w/ correction CU00-6: Dunn, pp367 Approved LSD00-4: CMIS, pp214 Approved LSD00-5: Steele Crossing, pp212 Denied RZ00-13: City of Fayetteville Fire Station, pp213 Approved to R -O AD00-7: General Plan Update Discussion Nominating Committee Slate for 2000 officers MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward None STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick None • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Johnson. The first matter is approval of the minutes from the March 13th meeting. There is no correction that I would request on page 9. I'm quoted as saying, "two duplexes on 3.25 acres across from P-1 property and separated on both sides by streams would negatively impact the property values." I did not say that. I said that would "not" negatively impact. Are there other corrections? If not then, they will be approved as distributed with that correction. Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 3 CU00-6: CONDITIONAL USE DUNN, PP367 This was submitted by Paul Dunn for property located at 1722 N. Gregg. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.84 acres. The request is for a Limited Neighborhood Commercial in an R-1 district. Paul Dunn was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. One wall sign shall be allowed with a maximum area of four square feet. The color of the sign shall be compatible with the colors of the structure and only indirect, external lighting is allowed. The applicant has agreed to a gray sign with black lettering which will modify his signage proposal to comply with the size requirement. 2. Any outdoor lighting shall be residential in nature and shall be shielded and directed away from all surrounding residential uses. No pole lights shall be permitted. 3. The applicant shall obtain from the Solid Waste Division a "commercial cart" for waste disposal. This oversized trash can with flip top lid shall be rolled out to the curb on pick up mornings and shall be stores within a screened enclosure at all other times. 4. The existing access into the property from Gregg Street shall be widened to meet the Fire Chiefs requirements of 20 feet. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating the relocation of an existing water meter with the City's Water & Sewer Maintenance Superintendent in order to widen this driveway. 5. Off-street parking is required at a ratio of 1 per 300 square feet for the proposed office. The applicant proposed to pave and strip a total of 4 parking square (one of which will meet ADA accessibility requirements) in a configuration which will allow vehicles to exit the site in a forward motion. The general location of these parking spaces is indicated on the site plan submitted by the applicant. A final, scaled site plan must be submitted to the Planning Division with an application for a parking lot permit prior to construction of this parking area. This professional office shall be limited to two full time employees as proposed by the applicant. The applicant would like to be able to add one part-time employee at a future time. If this is permitted, staff recommends that at the time a third employee is added, Planning Commission Minutes • March 27, 2000 Page 4 • • one additional parking space should be provided. 7. This professional office shall be limited to the existing structure Any expansion of the structure in the future will require Planning Commission approval s an amendment to this conditional use. 8. The applicant shall install screening along the north and west property lines adjacent to the proposed parking area. The screening to the north may be in the form of vegetative plantings or may be a 6 foot tall wooden, privacy fence. On the west, adjacent to the street right of way, screening as required by the city's Parking Lot Ordinance shall apply according to § 172.01 (E)(4)b. 9. The water shall be turned off immediately and the professional office shall not operate if any of the conditions are not met. 10. This conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Commission Discussion Johnson: We saw this at our last meeting. There were some questions about what was possible on access. This item was tabled until some questions could be resolved with the staff. It's my understanding that the main issue was whether or not the 20 foot drive could be constructed. You have consulted with the City Engineer and it can be constructed. There are 10 conditions of approval which staff required on this conditional use. Mr. Dunn, have you signed the conditions of approval? Dunn: Yes, ma'am. Johnson: Staff recommends that Mr. Dunn be able to add one more part time employee which is a change from last time. If so, an additional parking space will be required. Conklin: Staff has nothing further. Public Comment None. MOTION Commissioner Ward made a motion to approve CU00-6 subject to all conditions. Planning Commission Minutes • March 27, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Marr was not present. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 6 LSD00-4: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT COMPUTER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, PP214 This item was submitted by Chris Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Computer Management Information Systems, for property located at Moore Lane and Internet Drive. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 2.84 acres. Jeff Wilson and Roger Boskus were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Design Overlay District and Commercial Design Standards including signage an compliance with the "common design theme" requirements as compared to the Interface Computer building that was approved previously. 2. There shall be no site disturbance until this lot is cleared by the archeologist in conjunction with the Federal 404 Permit. 3. The driveway elevations and drainage to be coordinated with the City Engineering Department and the design engineer of the Arkansas Research & Technology Park. 4. The number of driveways shall be limited to two (2) including possible future phase. 5. Provide screening for all utility equipment and trash dumpsters. 6. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 7. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 8. Sidewalks to be constructed by the City of Fayetteville in accordance with current standards to include a 10 foot green space and 6 foot sidewalk. 9. Large Scale development approval is valid for one calendar year • 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 7 a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is in the city's Technology Park which is on 1-540 essentially across from the fairgrounds. This is the second large scale that we have had for the Arkansas Research and Technology Park. The first one we had before us last month. Staff has recommended approval of the large scale subject to 10 conditions of approval. There are certain items that we must address specifically. We must determine compliance with the Commercial Design Standards and the Overlay District. Tim, do you have additional information for us on this large scaler' Conklin: The applicant has provided a materials sample board showing the column covers and the trim which is an aluminum type covering. The window covering is blue and the roof color is rust. Wilson: I'll be happy to answer any questions on civil engineering issues and Mr. Boskus will respond to your questions on architectural issues. Johnson: We've seen this at Subdivision and agenda session. Bunch: On page 6 of 8 of our large packet of drawings from CEI, there is a tree plan that shows a number of trees in the easement at the lower, left corner in the vicinity of a 2 inch water line. Is that permissible? Petrie: That water line is not a public line. It is a private service line so there is no requirement. We would require trees to be planted 10 feet from public water mains. Johnson: Which way does the front of the building face? Wilson: It faces the circle. Johnson: So, north is the front. Wilson: Correct. Planning Commission Minutes • March 27, 2000 Page 8 • Boskus: The front and the back are the same and the two sides are the same. Johnson: Good. We love things that are similar. Estes: Staff, do the Commercial Design Standards and the Overlay District require that the front of the building face the street frontage? Conklin: The Overlay District requirements state that you shall have a front facing all public streets. When we refer to the building as a front, we're trying to avoid having the back side of the building facing the street with no windows or doors. In my opinion, this building on all 4 sides meets the Design Overlay District and Commercial Design Standards. Estes: Thank you. Ward: Would you describe the building materials and the design theme? Boskus: The materials for the building are a brick base which is similar to what the other structure is out there It has a masonry base and consists of aluminum store front glass and the blue material or trim around the windows and glass is similar. Both buildings have the store front material as well. This building has a maroon, metal roof. The building is metal frame structure and we have an anodized, aluminum color column covers. Those are the 4 colors that you see on the material board. Johnson: As I recall there is some brick veneer. Is the brick a similar color to what has been approved? Boskus: No. Hoffman: From Subdivision Committee, they have made design clarifications to bring the building materials into a similar but not identical, complimentary basis with the first building out there. I think you have done what we asked you to do and we appreciate that. This is a phased development and phase one is this building. There is the opportunity to build a matching building on the north side of this site and we did not take any action on that reserved site. Johnson: We are only dealing tonight with phase one even though it has an odd configuration on the north boundary. Hoffman: When the north side comes back through, I want to make it clear that it will need . to come back through the process for large scale development. Thank you. Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 9 Public Comment None. MOTION Commissioner Shackelford made a motion to approve LSD00-4 subject to conditions and comments. Commissioner Odom seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 10 LSDO-5: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT STEELE CROSSING, PP212 This item was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Argus Properties for property located on lot 15 of CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 18.48 acres. Mel Milholland, Guy Washburn, Kirk Rankin, Micki Harrington, and Jim Irwin were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Due to the outstanding issues of this project, staff does not have a recommendation at this time. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to approve this development, staff recommends that approval be subject to the following: Planning Commission determination of compliance with Design Overlay District and Commercial Design Standards including signage. This development will have street frontage on both Shiloh Drive and Van Asche Drive. 2. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to allow 2 ground mounted monument signs. The applicant is requesting one sign for each major tenant. Staff supports this request with the condition that both signs be in compliance with the monument signage requirements of the sign ordinance. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Planning Commission determination of waiver request to allow a 60 foot truck entrance with no islands off Van Asche Drive. Staff supports this waiver due to the fact that a large radius will be needed by the delivery trucks. This will be the only drive for this development along the Van Asche frontage which measures 1,042 feet. 5. Planning Commission determination of whether to allow the 25% green space requirement of the Design Overlay District regulations to be met for a future adjoining development with this large scale development. This project has a large green belt running along the east side totaling 130,686 square feet. The future phase would be on the west side with an area of 11.52 acres. 6. The Final Plat for Phase I and II of the CMN Business Park II must be filed prior to obtaining signatures for Occupancy Permits for these buildings. • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 11 7. All drainage outside of the street right of way is privately owned and maintained. 8. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 10. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 10 foot minimum green space with a 6 foot minimum sidewalk along Shiloh Drive and Van Asche Drive. The driveway approaches are to be Portland Cement Concrete. 11. Approval is subject to all the conditions of approval for CMN Business Park, Phase II. 12. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect the public safety must be completed, not dust guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Johnson: This building is adjacent and between Shiloh and Van Asche Drive just south of the mall. Staff has not made a recommendation. We have various conditions of approval The Commission must make a determination on Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District issues. We have two waiver requests that we must address. One is to allow 2 ground mounted monument signs and the other is to allow a 60 foot truck entrance with no island off Van Asche. Staff supports both of the waivers. We must determine compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. We must determine whether to allow the 25% green space requirement of Design Overlay to be met on this site for this and a future adjoining development. • Conklin: The Planning Division has received 3 phone calls from people unable to be here • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 12 this evening. Stacy Issinghoff stated that if the tree preservation ordinance isn't enforced now, we will not be able to enforce it with other developments. James Knuzleman residing at #2 Mount Nord is in support of the tree ordinance and wants it to be enforced with this development. Brett Park residing at 230 W. Center did not want to see the resources of trees unnecessarily squandered and companies locating in Fayetteville should respect our tree ordinance. David Bugue residing at 1158 N. Maxwell Drive wanted to preserve the trees and move the project some other place. This is a large scale development containing approximately 128,000 square feet. Staff has provided a staff report without a recommendation but setting forth conditions of approval. We toured this site at agenda session. The main issue tonight that we need to address is the Landscape Administrator's interpretation of the ordinance and her recommendation. In preparing this report prior to the agenda session, we did not make a recommendation because it was our understanding that through additional meetings some compromise could be worked out. The Landscape Administrator has made a recommendation that the proposed development could be redesigned to meet the ordinance requirements. The Landscape Administrator's position was created in 1995 and administration of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance was removed from the Planning Division at that time. This position was created in order to hire a professional with knowledge and experience with regard to tree protection and preservation. The interpretation and recommendation regarding the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance rests with the Landscape Administrator. Through the development review process, the Planning Division obtains comments and recommendations from the various departments and divisions on proposed development. I, personally, give great importance to these recommendations by other city staff members who are responsible for ensuring proposed projects comply with our city ordinances and as we go through the development review process, we have comments from our fire chief, traffic superintendent, city engineer, etc. We take those very seriously and make sure that when they are reviewing a proposed development that it does comply with out ordinances. I personally support and trust that the Landscape Administrators' interpretation and recommendation that has been made regarding this project is accurate and correct and therefore, I cannot recommend approval of this project as it is currently designed. Finally, the applicant is in disagreement with the Landscape Administrator's interpretation and recommendation and has requested that the Planning Commission decide on this issue. This determination is allowed under Chapter 155.06(D)(4) which is an appeal of the interpretation of the Landscape Administrator to the Planning Commission. The decision this evening with regard to approval or denial of this project rests with the Planning Commission. I wanted to clarify staff's recommendation for denial of this project. Overall, the project is complying with the Parking Lot Ordinance with 6 • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 13 Hesse: regard to landscaping. It is complying with our zoning provisions including setbacks. They are proposing to meet the 25 foot landscape requirement along public streets. It is complying in all areas except tree preservation as interpreted by the Landscape Administrator. I am unable to support this project as currently designed. Basically, I am going to present my findings in support of my recommendation. I will discuss the particulars of this 18.48 acre project plus the entire CMN Business Park II and the mitigation effort there. I would like to briefly discuss the ordinance and how I interpret the ordinance and end with why my recommendation is for denial of this development as proposed. As you are aware, this site is encompassed in lot 15 of the CMN Business Park II. Lot 7 which adjoins this is intended to be developed with lot 15 as one development. The applicant has asked that we combine the green space requirements of the Overlay District and I believe it would work best if they could also combine their tree preservation for the two lots together as one. The combined site equals 30 acres. To the north, lots 15 and 7 are bordered by Van Asche and to the south is the extension of Shiloh and to the west would be Steele Avenue. All of these three roads are proposed and are under construction at this time. To the east of lot 15 is the unnamed tributary that flows into Mud Creek. The north central part of the two lots is a grove of oak trees. These oak trees consist of approximately 98 rare, landmark trees. The definition of a rare tree is a tree which is 24 inches in diameter or larger. Three of these trees are dead and about 6 are in declining health but that leaves us with 89 trees that are rare. This grove of trees is predominantly post oak trees with some red oaks, hickories, elms, and green ashes included. It's a good example of what your native Ozark forest consists of. The post oaks are in the majority. They are slow growing. It's a rough oak. It's shorter and broader oak with a broad canopy. It is a very tough oak and survives in Ozark clay, rocky soils and it does well in our periods of drought. It's very reminiscent of what survives in our Ozark's forests. It is, however, tempermental to new development. They do not transplant well. It's difficult to recreate a grove of post oak trees. It would be almost impossible to find a post oak in the nursery trade Typically these trees grow where they grow naturally. They support wildlife. They support nesting habitats. They clean the air and clean the ground water and provide all the attributes that trees provide for our environment. These trees do not do well under the stressed conditions of construction. The only successful way to preserve this grove would be to leave them undisturbed in a group. From the information that I have, this existing grove covers 3.5 acres of the two lots. That number could be different from recent findings. Using the 3.5 acres, it averages 20% of the entire site. That is what is existing out there today. Regarding the entire development, there is an unnamed tributary that borders the Planning Commission Minutes • March 27, 2000 Page 14 • • east side of this lot. It is protected in a deed restricted area. The deed restricted area is a part of the overall effort to mitigate the wetlands that protect the water quality of Mud Creek. In order for the entire CMN Business Park II to be developed, it had to have permits from the Corps of Engineers. These permits are required through the Clean Waters Act. In speaking with the environmental consultant for the site, approximately 14 to 15 acres of wetland were identified on the site. Some of those areas will be impacted. Some of it will preserved as is. Approximately 8 acres of new wetlands are being recreated along with what they consider as a riparian buffer system. What that does is provide an additional tree buffer to further clean the waters of Mud Creek. Part of the mitigation effort and their ability to obtain permits for development requires them to plant 1,043 trees on the overall 305 acre business park. Four hundred twenty five of these trees are to be containerized trees meaning they are in a pot maybe one gallon in size with a minimum caliper of 5/8th inch. The remaining 618 trees are to be bare root trees with a minimum height of 36 inches. We're talking about small trees. Typically that would be appropriate considering they are putting them in a native habitat where they are going to be maintained. It's much more difficult for larger trees to make it. Smaller trees will have a better opportunity. This is in a deed restricted area which requires that these trees be monitored over a 5 year period. Those trees will have to be replaced in kind if they die within a 5 year period. When CMN Business Park II was submitted for review as a commercial subdivision, a tree preservation plan was submitted which represented a total canopy of 17% of the entire 300 acres site. We factored in clearing of the utility easements, required grading, and road construction and we were left with 13% canopy coverage of the entire site. Our ordinance requirements for C-2 requires 15% canopy preservation. They are very close to that requirement. I would like to state that the 3.5 acres on these lots is a part of the 13% preservation for the entire 300 acre site. I think that should be considered. The Tree Protection and Preservation ordinance was adopted by City Council in 1992. This ordinance, just like any of our city's development ordinances must be met prior to Planning Commission approval. The Tree Preservation Ordinance carries the same weight as the Overlay District, Commercial Design Standards, Parking Lot Standards, the Land Disturbance Ordinance and I'm simply requesting that this development meet the minimum standards of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance clearly states that: "...proposed developments are to be designed to maximize preservation of rare and landmark trees. All new subdivisions, large scale developments, and commercial developments shall preserve existing trees by percentage minimum canopy." What that means is that the canopy area required for preservation is based on the total area of the site and not a percentage of the existing tree canopy which has created some confusion. When I state that in C-2, you are to preserve 15% of the existing site's canopy, that 15% is factored from • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 15 the entire 18.48 acres. Fifteen percent of the 18.48 acres would constitute a 2.7 acre area of trees to be preserved. The main controversy, of this ordinance is replacement versus preservation The ordinance states that: "In the event a tree cannot be preserved as required, tree replacement may be an option." This option keeps the ordinance from rendering a piece of property undevelopable due to existing trees. It leaves an option for pieces of property with great relief in them with major grading issues or there are a various number of things that could affect the ability to preserve trees on a site. In the spirit of the ordinance, I want to state that tree replacement is only an option and it is an option if all else fails. The main reason behind this is that planting young trees with a 4 or 6 inch caliper is no substitute to the older, established trees that exist on a site. These older, native trees are well established and they can handle a lot more of the rigors of the urban environment. There are 2 facts to consider. One is that a young tree planted in a highly commercialized area has a life expectancy of only 10 years. In a lower density residential area, a young tree has a Life expectancy of 30 years When you start with a large, established tree and it a lot more energy. A tree grows off it's roots, the system within the trunk and it's foliage. These trees already have established root systems. They have established canopies. They can pull in and reserve energy much easier than younger trees. That is why they are much more valuable and replacement is only a minimal option in my viewpoint. Two, you consider the energy consumed to get a young tree to grow to the size of an older tree. There is the planting time. The watering time. Fertilizing. The constant care it takes to get a young tree to be the size of these rare 24 inch or larger trees. Basically, I look at replacement in the event that a piece of property cannot be developed and the trees saved I am passing around 2 options that I've come up with. The first option is the site layout that I showed the Subdivision Committee last week. We basically pushed the development south and spread the parking area to the side This saves about 11% of site area with existing tree canopy. We're still under the 15% but we're preserving a lot of wonderful trees. I understand that this development has it's criteria for development and it was very clear that they wanted all their parking in the front. The second site layout provides the parking in the front. It provides the same square footage and approximately the same amount of parking. The out lots are reconfigured. Your out lots are probably not as valuable but they are still existing there and the trees are preserved. It seems obvious to me that this site can be designed and the trees preserved and that is why it's difficult for me to except replacement in this situation. Kohl's Department Store, like most chains, has standards and site layouts that traditionally work for their best success. Visibility must be the highest and they achieve that from Fulbright Expressway. Parking must be in front and in this particular case, the adjoining retailer that may come to lot 7 works very well with this development and in typical situations these 2 retailer's • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 16 buildings will touch allowing consumers to walk from one store to the other. The squared off building and parking lot is the most economical to develop utilizing the required green space that is required through the Overlay District, by utilizing the tributary banks, that is the most economical because that is where most of your grade change is. Our ordinances, however, we not written to tailor to the optimum development conditions. They were written to meet the purposes of the ordinance. Trees play a role in energy consumption, pollution abatement, and storm water control. The purposes of this tree preservation are varied and they include economic, environmental, and social considerations. Our ordinances were not written to discourage development but to encourage development to coexist with the needs of this community. Trees are a natural resource that we as a community can invest in. Trees are a resource that will serve us for decades to come and that will reflect the community's interest in retaining its local heritage, its beauty, and its natural resources. I would like to recognize that this development rests on a very valuable piece of land. I understand that as land costs rise, it becomes more and more difficult to swallow the cost of tree preservation. However, I feel that the cost of the preservation is relative to the cost of land. In other words, developers that can only afford Tess expensive acreage will feel the tax of tree preservation just as much as the developers of higher valued land. I see this development approval as setting a precedent for future development of this area. If these developers are not required to meet the ordinance by preserving healthy, heritage trees such as this oak grove, what argument do we have for future developments that do not want to be flexible with their design. It is my hope that these developers will be aware of the activities of their competition and hopefully they can see that by adopting new approaches such as tree preservation, that their business and their success will be enhanced. We must be consistent with our ordinances. We must uphold them or get rid of them. Tonight you are deciding on a preservation of a prime example of oak/hickory Ozark forest. This is a pristine example of why the Tree Preservation Ordinance was created. It was written to protect some of our community's heritage and our natural resources. It's an ordinance that can preserve these resources not only for the present community but for the grandchildren of our present community. After speaking with the developers today, we discussed things that are amiss in our ordinance and I think one very basic thing that is remiss is that we do not really have mitigation options. Developments that do have very pristine tracks of land have basically a very pristine ecosystem that exists there. I think in the future, we need to consider creating other environments and maybe putting them in restricted easements where they will always be there and we can depend on them being there 20 years in the future. I hate to see this development turned down. However, I think there are options out there. I think the site can be flexible and I think the tree preservation requirements can be met. The optimum solution is to preserve the Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 17 trees but bring the development in and have everything coexist. I think in the future, we need to consider mitigation efforts for situations like this. (Applause from the public) Johnson: This is a business meeting. I would ask that you please conduct yourselves according to the rules of Commission and we don't have applause, we don't boo people or cheer people. We listen. Kim, I have a couple of questions. Under each of the layouts that you have provided to us, what percentage of this grove of trees would be saved in your drawings? Hesse: The first drawing, I believe, it's about 11% of the entire site and probably half of the existing trees. The second layout is probably more. I didn't have instruments to calculate area. Ward: When we rezoned this property, were you aware of all of the groves of trees? Is there something we should done before this was rezoned? Hesse: I wasn't employed by the city at that time. However, I believe the tree ordinance was taken into account because a tree preservation plan was submitted. Ward: How many acres are in this grove of trees? Hesse: 3.5 acres. Ward: If the layout is changed, could we save 40 to 50 of the trees for sure? Hesse: It's going to take additional design work and looking at this very specifically. I would guess that we can save a good percentage of them in a group. Ward: Do we have other lots in the CMN park with this situation? Hesse: There is one lot with a small grove of trees between it and the expressway which will become a visibility problem in the future possibly. There was a large grove of trees on the far northern lot which is actually just west of the mall. We lost a large percentage of those trees due to grading. Basically, that lot had a large ravine through the very center of it and it's a huge lot. We could have divided that lot at the ravine and saved the trees but to market that piece it was filled. The remainder of that forested area is on a very steep slope. I would guess that are protected based on the nature of where they exist. • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 18 Estes: Hesse: Milholland: Our tree ordinance provides that the proposed development should be designed to maximize the preservation of rare and landmark trees and where rare and landmark trees exist, flexible approaches such as adjustments to lot layout, placement of buildings and paved surfaces and location of utilities should be pursued in order to save them. You have done that and have provided us with these two layouts. Commissioners Johnson and Ward have both asked what can be preserved. Can the ordinance be complied with by adjustments to the lot layout and placement of the buildings and paved surfaces? I understand you are not an architect and this is a home cooked effort on your part. Yes. It can be done. We appreciate this opportunity to present our plan for this development on lot 7 and lot 15. I am the engineer for this project as well as the overall CMN project. We have worked with the Corps of Engineers and provided a deed restricted area. When CMN was developed, I discussed this with the previous tree preservation administrator. My concern for replanting of trees destroyed for streets and utilities was delayed until each lot was developed. My purpose was not to delay the action of the tree preservation ordinance but the fact that we did not know where the buildings were going to be laid out on those lots. If you do a residential subdivision, you do a tree preservation plan for the whole tract as we did for CMN Business Park II Phases I and II. If someone builds a house on it, I'm assuming they don't have to bring it back to the Planning Commission to move trees off their lot to build a house. I'm assuming that same scenario goes for any development. If I'm wrong in that, I need to be corrected. That was my understanding when CMN was brought before you. You have a letter where we have summarized the total acreage of tree preservation in the CMN Business Park II originally approved. The total canopy of the 305 acres was 52.49 or 17.22% of the total properties. Whenever the streets are totally complete and the utilities are in, we end up with a sellable area with a canopy of 14.39%. If you look at the mitigation plan that is already in place with the Corps that added back 6.2% which is 20.59% total canopy on the 305 acres. If you take out lot 7 and 15, it still leaves 18.07% acres of mature canopy coverage including the existing trees left plus our mitigation area with the Corps. Trees have been the only issue so far. I would like for the representative of Argus Properties to present to you their scenario of a commercial development. They gave us their guidelines for their clients and that is what we used. We assumed that the tree preservation guidelines were the same for both residential and commercial development. Rankin: I'm with Argus Properties out of Charlotte, North Carolina. We got involved with • this property on behalf of tenants and investors and had several conversations with • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 19 the planning staff, Mr. Conklin and Ms. Warrick. They sent information to us. I worked with the owners of CMN to acquire these tracts. I hired a local professionals to determine and understand what was required to be able to develop this property. The primary issue we are dealing with is the trees. I think we have accomplished everything by modifying our plans to meet the Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District requirements. We made a lot of adjustments and we worked very hard with staff to get to this point. The critical nature of the tree preservation ordinance was never disclosed to us until after we purchased the lots. Our plan is to develop lot 15 and follow up with a development on lot 7. I believe you have the concept plan for the whole development. We went to great lengths to comply with the Overlay District green space requirements particularly on the front portion of this lot. The critical items were aware of was green space and water quality. We were familiar with those. In general, the efforts made by CMN on the overall subdivision and in dealing with the Corps of Engineers and so on. We tried to keep the bulk of our green space on the east side of the property. There is slope in that area. We tried to minimize channelization of the unnamed tributary. We desired to expand the actual area which was restricted by the Corps in terms of a green space. In addition to our role as a developer, we must consider the needs of the tenant and the needs of the City. We're the middle man. Kohl's typical parking requirements are 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet. We have negotiated with them to meet the city's requirements of 4.8 per 1,000 square feet. They feel like they have made a lot of concessions in this process to make this work. Our thoughts were to keep a green space bulked up on one side of the lot adjacent to the unnamed tributary to help provide connectivity of the green space required with the Corps of Engineers along Mud Creek. We are confused about the language used regarding preservation and replacement. I don't understand Ms. Hesse's percentages. We are not preserving 11% of what is there, I believe she is referring to 11% of the total canopy. It is our position that this plan not only meets but exceeds the 15% mature canopy requirements. It does not preserve more than 2% of the total site. Total site on that plan with replacement comes up to 16%. That is the plan we have submitted and we would like your action on what is before you. Until last week, I thought we were meeting the requirements. In an attempt at compromise, we would like to come up with an additional 2 acres of canopy area perhaps adjoining a deed restricted area which over time would replace and provide this grove type of effect. Additionally, please remember that we are meeting the necessary requirements for replacement. I think that is beneficial. These 2 lots have almost 7 acres of existing trees. They happen to be all clumped together. That makes it much tougher to deal with and less flexible. Had they been spread out, we would have had a better chance to save them. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 20 Harrington: I represent the CMN group who sold this property to Argus Properties. I would like to address the question about how clear is this to people who are looking at what they are required to do when they come into your city. Of course, we have had a lot of encouragement in the course of the CMN project to try to bring in high quality, national level type of retailers because it would be good for the city. They are going to mostly be coming in from out of town and they are not going to be familiar with your local ways of doing things. One of the things I have learned in trying to understand how this has sort of come about is to try and understand how your ordinance works from a developer's perspective where I sit. It took me a long time to figure out that Ms. Hesse was regarding this grove of trees as rare and landmark trees. I'm not sure if there is tree registry being followed and kept. I should have asked that. It seems like a tree registry would serve as notice for developers that a parcel they are considering buying has trees on it that are going to be subject to the provisions for rare and landmark trees. This past week or two, I have been laboring under the impression that these are not in this category because nowhere in your ordinance does it say 24 inch trees are rare or landmark trees that I could find. It's my understanding it is actually on an internal checklist that goes to the engineers. I know for a fact they looked over every possible thing regarding developing this property. It was a 6 week process and Mr. Conklin was extremely helpful as was Dawn Warrick in describing the kind of things they could expect in bringing forward this project. There was never any discussion regarding preservation of this grove of trees. That is not to fault Mr. Conklin or Ms. Warrick. It is not their department and therefore, landscape administration is left in an altogether different spot in the city. If you come in from out of town and talk to the Planning Department about everything you can anticipate then it should cover everything. The sellers, the buyers, and perhaps even the Planning Department understood that replacement would probably be a viable option. Then, an entirely different Department who was probably not even looking at this until a couple of weeks ago, has come to the conclusion that these trees should be preserved. What it amounts to is a total surprise. That is difficult to deal with since this development has been underway for a solid 5 years. If CMN had known that the City was taking the position this grove of trees needed to be preserved, the alignment of the streets which has been changed in the course of the years usually at the request of the city would have been different so that the lot configuration could be different. There's no cohesion with the City's requirements to develop this park. My clients have made every effort to follow all environmental and conservation requirements of the City, the Corps of Engineers, and everyone's requirements. The owners of CMN are very concerned about doing this right. They have hired the best environmental consulting firm in the area and that is why they are doing all that they can with the mitigation plan working with the Corps. The Corps has been giving very positive reviews about • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 21 Irwin: this group and working with them. There has been no effort to avoid this ordinance. We just weren't made aware of it until too late. It is our opinion that the tree ordinance is difficult to understand what category they are under and whether these are trees rare trees or regular trees. Whether replacement is allowed. Throughout the ordinance it mentions replacement. The 24 inch diameter indicating rare trees is not in the ordinance. By the time you are done with it, it's hard for anybody to tell what they are looking at. I know the attorneys for Argus Properties reviewed all these things ahead of time and believed that replacement would meet the spirit of the ordinance. The surprise is very disturbing. I ask that the city, regardless of the outcome of this situation, really give a hard look to trying to give enough public notice to buyers as to what will be required. When you are working with a long range, long term development, if the city makes a decision about preserving a group a trees like this, lets do it before streets are constructed and utilities are located. I think Kim's interpretation is entirely new and has not been previously administered in this manner. I ask this because we don't want to run into this problem repeatedly. People from out of town can't tell what they are required to do. CMN is happy to work with Argus Properties to provide acreage off site to provide a mitigation plan for these tree issues. The ordinance is clearly ambiguous and the process is not defined on how to get from one section to the next. That has caused a lot of confusion. CMN is doing all they can to assist this effort. If denied, we will forward this to council. We don't want to drag this out but we will be glad to arrange meetings to work this out. Ms. Hesse feels the developers are not meeting the ordinances but the developers feel that they are meeting the ordinances. No one is against the trees in any of these projects. I have been working on this property since June of 1995. Ms. Hesse has been very helpful and wants to work with us. We've met together a couple of times and we've had numerous conversations. She's trying to come up with middle ground. These buyers are sophisticated and are from out of town. They buy property all over the country and they felt confident their interpretation of the way this thing works and they have bought the land. The landowners want to do what is best for the City of Fayetteville. They have another 250 acres out there. Johnson: Ms. Harrington has indicated there was considerable surprise on the part of the developer regarding the interpretation of the tree ordinances. Can you respond to that comment? Conklin: In 1998, we adopted the Unified Development Ordinance. It includes all the ordinances related to development including zoning, subdivisions, tree ordinance, grading, and signs. We have this book available for developers. It includes • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 22 Johnson: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Hoffman: Milholland: definitions of what a rare or landmark tree is. I want to correct that. A rare tree is over 24 inches in diameter. When a developer comes to the Planning Division or talks to us on the phone, our office tries to make them aware that there are other divisions they need to talk with including Engineering, the Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator, and the Landscape Administrator because they deal with ordinances that we do not interpret or enforce through the Planning Division. It would be impossible to identify every issue through a couple of phone conversations. Typically the detailed site plans submitted for review process is when we are looking at the trees and site layout. When the developer submits their plans and gets into the process is when we review the plans and make our recommendations about site specifications. I think Mr. Milholland and Ms. Harrington indicated they were surprised when they learned they might be required to save a large portion of this stand of trees. Do you have reason to challenge their statement to us? That they were surprised? My comment at Subdivision Committee was that 100% of the percentage of the trees required for canopy be existing trees and I disagree with that. I don't think the ordinance ever was intended to mean that 100% of the canopy be from existing trees. I was surprised to hear that. In 1995, the Landscape Administrator's position was created and Ms. Hesse now administers this ordinance. I have seen projects in the past where they have not been held to the 15% and that tree replacement has been allowed. It is the Landscape Administrator's call. It is irrelevant whether I think the trees can be saved or should be saved. I will rely on the expert, Kim Hesse, to make our recommendation. At Subdivision Commission, we tried to stress that we were looking for a compromise. I don't recall Kim saying that 100% of the existing canopy must be saved. Both of her options presented tonight actually removed some of that grove of trees to accommodate the buildings. The plan submitted tonight is the exact one before the Subdivision Committee and there has been no alterations to that plan. Has the applicant considered an alternate plan? I have met with Mr. Venable, Guy Washburn, and Kim Hesse It has taken a lot of time to come up with this plan where the drainage and parking would work for the buildings we had. I don't think Ms. Hesse's plans consider the drainage. It is my understanding Kohl's has a feasibility program for their development that • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 23 works for them. Even if the drainage worked on Ms. Hesse's plan, it would not produce the unity needed to develop lot 7 and meet their feasibility plan. Shackelford: I would like for Mr. Rankin to address their concems about our requirements and meeting their feasibility plan. Rankin: We have seen Ms. Hesse's plans. We have explored things similar to these. It won't work for us This is where we are and we want you to consider our plan. Harrington: We have attempted compromise. Mr. Rankin in offering to plant in excess of 2 acres of trees in a grove type of manner in the required green space there. Actually, we are willing to fulfill the penalty clause of the ordinance and plant over the 10%. We have also offer to provide an offsite area and plant trees. Those are our attempts of compromise. Staff is talking about moving the building and we're talking about providing additional trees. Estes: I noted that Mr. Rankin claims they are saving 16% of the existing trees. • Rankin: I'm going to rely on Mr. Washburns' numbers. Washburn: The 16% combines the 2% preserved and 14% replacement. Estes: Are the replacement trees mandated by the Corps of Engineers? Washburn: No, sir Estes: Are these trees already in the ground? Washburn: No. They will be put in planters and they will be 2 inch caliper and be placed in the parking area and in front of the buildings and along the right of ways. Rankin: I have also offered to provide an area off site to plant an additional two acres in the green space area on the east side of the property between the parking lot and the unnamed tributary which is our eastem boundary. This area is adjacent to the Corps of Engineers. They have a 40 foot strip adjacent to the unnamed tributary. Estes: Replacement trees bother me. We see the pencil size saplings that have been put in the Corps of Engineers area. Is that what you're talking about? Rankin: No. We're talking about medium canopy trees and large canopy trees at probably • 50 percent each. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 24 Marr: The 16% coverage is 2 acres of replacement trees? Estes: No, it's the parking lot trees. Marr: So, those are trees that we would have as a result of our parking lot ordinance regardless of whether we preserve trees or not. Milholland: They will be new trees with a 2 inch caliper. There is 15% minimum canopy required. We are going to try and save existing trees plus trees required in the parking area and right of way of the road, we have 16%. That meets the requirement. That does not include the green belt plantings which adjoin the Corps' deed restricted area Public Comment Johnson: It has been clearly brought before us that we have a tree protection and preservation ordinance and we have a landscape administrator who believes that the plan before us does not comply with that. We have seen a show of support for the landscape coordinator's position. There is the opinion that if we do not enforce the tree preservation ordinance that we would be violating that ordinance and that this would set a bad precedent for the future. We have been urged to enforce the tree protection and preservation ordinance. I would request that you inform us of things which we have not heard. Something new. Randy Zurcher was present. Zurcher: Ask yourself a few questions. Why is it so good for the City of Fayetteville for the sophisticated, out of town developers to come in and set up business? They will send their money back to Mississippi, Louisiana, or back where ever. This isn't local business we're talking about. If Ms. Harrington was a good ambassador, she would have updated them on our laws and ordinance and had them prepared. Johnson: Please refrain from engaging in personalities, if you would. Tom McKinney, the conservation chair for the Ozark Headwaters Group of the Sierra Club was present. McKinney: We have 175 members. I appreciate the good work this Commission and Ms. Johnson has done as the chair. I feel sure that there is a reference in the ordinance of what constitutes a landmark tree. The oak and hickory trees down there are a • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 25 good representation of the Ozark forest. This is also a remnant of the Oak Savannah ecosystem that used to constitute this area. Please follow the tree preservation ordinance and ask these folks to redesign their store to save as many of the trees as possible. The Planning Commission did not approve this rezoning. It was approved by a vote of the City Council on appeal. One of the objections at that time was it was a large rezoning with no plan in place for lot configuration. If this area had been identified years ago, we would not be in this situation. Kathy Marsh was present. Marsh: Business and the community should be able to get along. Our surroundings are important but I am a consumer and I want business. These trees provide a valuable habitat. I commend Ms. Hesse. Jim Wilson, chairman of the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee, was present. Wilson: We work very closely with Kim and we wholly support Kim Hesse in this matter. We feel it is a watershed. As goes the Commission's decisions, so goes Fayetteville. Dan Coody was present. Coody: There was an article about the future economic development of this city. The core issue was developing Fayetteville as a retail hub for the region. We make Fayetteville this retail hub, we have to do something more attractive than just reproduce the same types of buildings done everywhere else. Environmental concerns must be taken into consideration. They have done a good job with banks of the creeks. I feel they are missing a great marketing opportunity to design these trees into their project. I think Ms. Hesse's comments about coexistence between the environment and business were on target. Janice Ryan was present. Ryan: I live on a wooded lot in a wooded town and I love it. Anyone who comes to Fayetteville should honor our culture and our regulations. We want good citizens in our town. I saw a quote from Henry David Thoreau, "The trees indeed have hearts." My hope is that we have hearts as big as these trees and that we will stand behind people who have worked to make the regulations. Josh Richards from Fayetteville High School was present. • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 26 Richards: I got an email about this. I feel we should preserve the trees. Fran Alexander was present. Alexander: Historically since this ordinance passed in 1992, there has been a constant battle of the definition of preservation and replacement being okay. If the site was not able to be developed any other way, replacement would be an option. It took the citizens a year and half of meetings. Then it was debated and it came down in pieces. Finally, after great struggle, the citizens managed to put this ordinance together. The horticulturist position was dropped and it was turned over to the Planning Commission to enforce. We continue to go around about preservation and replacement. When the landscape administrator was hired to enforce the ordinance, it became a workable ordinance. A 100 year old tree cannot be replaced. Patricia Mickelson was present. Mickelson: My four year old daughter is sad that people are hurting mother earth by cutting down the trees. My 10 year old son wanted to come to the meeting to show he can make a difference. He asked that I tell you he wants his children to have the trees. Rex Dufour was present. Dufour: I've heard the terms replacement and mitigation. Canopy is discussed in the ordinance. 15% canopy implies that 15% of the sky will be shaded by leaves. If you're planting new trees, the 15% of shaded sky will not be achieved in my life time. I'm 46 years old. The ordinance should address a time frame to achieve canopy replacement. Rick McKinney was present. McKinney: We have seen many trees taken out for development. We should consider the value of old growth trees. We are partners with the CMN development and the City Council approved $1 million to pave their roads out there and they should work with the city to preserve these trees. Marquette Myque was present. . Myque: I would like to Fayetteville to be married to economic growth and ecological growth the focus with laser clarity and not grow at any prices. Friendly growth • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 27 has been modeled for us. Sedona, Arizona. Ashville. Carmell. San Antonio. Austin. The list goes on. It is possible to grow in harmony with our Ozark natural state spirit. How far can we get with a slogan of concrete, vinyl, asphalt state? We must protect it and grow it. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: We did receive a letter from the League of Women voters. Thank you. Estes: In the materials provide by the staff, there is no recommendation. Would the City Planner please opine as to whether or not this project complies with the tree ordinance. Conklin: I gave a recommendation earlier. We rely on the landscape administrator to make the determination on the tree ordinance. We rely on engineering to administer the grading and drainage ordinances. As the City Planner, I can not support this project. • Estes: Regarding commercial design standards and the overlay district, do I understand correctly that the back of this building faces a collector street. • Conklin: That is correct. Based on the elevations provided tonight, I believe the commercial design standards and the overlay district ordinances have met. They have split face block and a banding scheme with color to break up the expanse of the wall facing Van Asche. I am comfortable that this meets our design standards. They have incorporated columns into their design. Hoover: I agree with Kim Hesse and I appreciate her. The tree ordinance is equal to our grading ordinance and drainage ordinance so I will not be voting for this. I still have problems with the design. I was studying the design standards and I see that a development should provide compatibility and transitions between adjoining developments. Because this is such a piece meal development, I don't see how this relates to any adjacent developments. This has a strip center appearance and it leads me to assume this entire area will development in the same manner. No connecting walks are provided for pedestrians. Will I have to go along the boulevard? This doesn't encourage pedestrian traffic. Will all the back doors be facing Van Asche making it an alley? Will all the parking be in the fronts of buildings? I want to picture this whole thing as a unit. Last Friday, I took a training program for Commissioners. We learned some interesting things. I learned that every with City zoning must have a comprehensive plan. We have the 2020 Plan. Within that plan, we can have special area plans or system plans • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 28 that take an area and actually do a suggested development for that smaller area to solve some of these issues and also to provide a guideline for the developers and a opportunity to identify and work out some of the problems ahead of time so the developer knows what we are going to expect. I am for preplanning and mass planning since I come from an architectural background. I have received calls from the Community Design Center at the University of Arkansas. This is a unique organization that is a nonprofit design center with some funding from the state. What they provide is advice to city and community organizations to help them do master plans when they see that there is a problem area. They have helped with the Downtown and Dickson Street areas. They have helped the City of Hot Springs. They helped with the parking plan by going to Washington, D.C. to get funds. They are instrumental in implementing good overlay planning. They have offered to assist the city in developing master plan scenarios for this 300 acres. It would not be one plan but they would do scenarios worked out with staff. This could be used when the developer is marketing property to the buyers would know what the city is expecting. It would help everyone in the long run. Shackelford: If this project does not pass tonight, what is the appeal procedure? • Conklin: They can appeal to the City Council. MOTION • Commissioner Bunch made a motion to table the item for further study and to go back to the Subdivision Committee after contacting the design center. Commissioner Marr seconded the motion. Conklin: I would like to point out that staff has requested further study and alternative designs and it is our understanding that the developer wants a determination on what is presented here tonight. Johnson: This motion is in the spirit of compromise. I will oppose the motion because I think it has the effect of staff and Subdivision Committee designing the project. Procedurally, this is not a good way to go. Hoffman: Subdivision Committee would be willing to call special meetings but I will be voting against the motion because we have tried to work this out. Roll Call Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 29 Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 3-6-0. Commissioners Estes, Hoffman, Johnson, Odom, Shackelford, and Ward voted against the motion. Further Commission Discussion Ward: At this point, I think the developers have the right to our decision on the issues in front of us. We need to get on the record about the design standards and whether we approve of them or disapprove of them. Personally, I feel they are meeting the design standards by using the split block and articulating with colors. The City of Fayetteville needs projects like this. Johnson: Assuming this Commission does not approve this project and it goes forward on appeal, we should vote separately on design standards. Hoffman: I object because the trees are an overriding issue. The project should be approved on that basis and the overall design would have to approved subject to that and it would be totally different if they were to redesign and I wouldn't want our comments on design standards of this project to be representative of a totally different design. I can't see the forest for the trees. Estes: I would not want to vote on the commercial design standard and then vote of the tree ordinance. The applicant is entitled to know our thoughts on commercial design standards. I am troubled. I do not believe that it does comply with the commercial design standards. The reason is that the commercial design standards very plainly states that a back of a building cannot face a collector street. I am not aware of that any place in Fayetteville. Johnson: I agree with Tim that this project meets the commercial design standards. Hoffman: The signage is also an issue. They are asking for additional signs because of the numbers of lots. I have no problem with that because of the size of the lots and the fact that there are streets on both sides. Johnson: They're asking for two signs on lot 15. Conklin: We are supporting two monument signs. Rankin: We would want another sign for lot 7. Conklin: They would be allowed one sign on lot 7. • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 30 Johnson: There is a 60 foot truck entrance waiver and staff does support that. Conklin: Condition number five regards the green space requirement as part of the design overlay district. They have requested that the 25% requirement be met with the green space mitigation they provided on lot 15. In December, the applicant contacted staff and I wrote a letter stating that I would support that if this project was presented as a unified development including shared drives and parking. They have shown a future phase two and I am not opposed to allowing that request Marr: Regarding Commercial Design Standards, I am comfortable with this. MOTION Commissioner Marr made a motion deny this large scale development. Commissioner Estes seconded the motion. • Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Commission Shackelford voted against the motion. • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 31 RZ00-13: REZONING CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE FIRE STATION, PP213 This item was submitted by Charles Venable on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 1020 Harold Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.77 acres. The request is to rezone to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included a part of the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: Conklin: This is the City's former fire station located just off of North College on Harold Street. It is by the Saturn car dealership there east of Business 71. This is the site of the fire station which was relocated to a new facility on Plainview Dr. It contains .77 acres. It's currently developed with the fire station and is vacant. To the west is the Saturn car dealership. To the east, is a single family home and to the south the Market Court development. That is were Atlanta Bread Company is located. To the north is a single family home zoned R- 1. On the Planning Commission tour, you did request who the property owner to the north was and according to the county tax recorders, that is owned by Jim Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler also appears to have some interest in the Saturn car dealership. This is being requested by the City. We're trying to sell the fire station and it's really not a residential type structure on the property and a commercial use would be more appropriate. It is consist with our 2020 General Plan and we are recommending approval. Public Comment Janet Gallman-Ricker, residing at 3255 Lee Avenue was present. Gallman-Ricker: My husband and I reside at lot 4 and the north part of lot 5. I need two points of clarification. At one point there was confusion regarding the ownership of lot 5 and tonight you have said that it is Jim Bob Wheeler's or his trust's property. This rezoning request does or does not include lot 5 or the south 75 feet of it? Conklin: It does not include lot 5. The City of Fayetteville sold that property in 1985. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 32 Gallman-Ricker: Warrick: No. Gallman-Ricker: Dawn, have there been any additions or changes to your report since we discussed it in your office? That area out there is residential. My appeal to you tonight is don't rezone this property C-1. There are limited neighborhood commercial uses which can be allowed to an applicant as a conditional use on appeal in an R-1 district. The reason why you should do that is the residents need protection. We need the lighting shielded. It's one thing to look at the firemen playing basketball or horseshoes and it's another thing to have a used car dealership outside your kitchen window. By rezoning, you cannot put as many conditions upon it if it's zoned C-1. There are conditions that need to be imposed upon the use of that property since it is contiguous to residential on two sides. Harold Street is referred to as a collector street. I do believe there are back sides of buildings facing Harold Street. For example, the rental business and the dry cleaners. Those building backs face Harold Street and there is no screening. We are not policing the limited commercial uses that are there. Don't give the City carte blanche to have C-1 without being able to attach to it the proper limitations. I don't have a problem with neighborhood commercial in a residential district if the people are willing to be considerate of the residents of the neighborhood. You're going to have a tree problem on that lot. Those trees are greater than 24 inches in diameter. It was fortuitous that I was present for the previous discussion of rare and landmark trees. There are 75 lots in that residential subdivision. There are protective covenants that prohibit anything but residential structures. Those covenants are still in effect and have not been changed. The City has ceased to use the property as a nonresidential structure. I submit that this request is improper because the City has city-wide uses by right in any zone. There is no reason for the City to rezone this property. Their motivation is monetary. If that is a legitimate reason, 1 don't think the end justifies the means. Why doesn't the City explore other and better uses for that property. I want to hear the same kinds of things as I heard on the tree preservation issue. It's the residents that generate the sales tax dollars, vote for elected officials and also help run the city. We need consideration of the residents. That structure couldn't be altered to meet the protective covenants. This board is merely recommending zoning. I will be present for the meeting of the City Council. I want to give my appreciation for the work that you as volunteers do and for staff's assistance. Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 33 Further Commission Discussion Odom. Staff, if this is C-1 it would not come back for review because it's only .77 acres. Conklin: That is correct. Odom: So there wouldn't be a way to provide for screening and so forth. Conklin: We would review their plans and make sure the ordinance for buffering between zones would be complied with. They are required to provide vegetation or fencing. Used car sales are not allowed in C -I . C-1 would allow for a bookstore, a bakery, grocery store, deli, health food store, drug store, florist, hardware, furniture store, barbers, etc. Hoffman: Given that there is no imminent need to rezone this to C-1, what would be the affect of zoning to R -O. Conklin: They would be able to get similar uses. The limited neighborhood commercial use ordinance strives to ensure a residential appearance. MOTION Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to rezone the .77 acres to R -O. Commissioner Hoover seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0. Commissioners Johnson and Shackelford voted against the motion. Planning Commission Minutes • March 27, 2000 Page 34 • • AD00-7• ADMINISTRATIVE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Johnson: Staff is going to present information about the necessary work to be done on the General Plan, Master Street Plan, and Planning Area Boundary. Conklin: When the plan was adopted in 1995 by resolution #147-95, it required the Planning Division to update in the year 2000. This is included on the agenda as the first step in the update process. We need to look at three components and that includes the Planning Area Boundary map and amending that based on the Planning Commission and City Council annexation actions which have occurred since 1995. We have overlaps with other city's jurisdictions. This will involve other cities working the City of Fayetteville to eliminate these overlaps. We must look at the Master Street Plan to include the recent developments on Highway 265 and the northeast part of the city and the area along Mt. Comfort to designate additional collector streets. We will need a subcommittee to look at that. Regarding the Future Land Use Plan, we need to make revisions to that including areas that the Planning Commission and City Council have rezoned which were not consistent with our Land Use Plan. We have identified those using GIS and our mapping system. The Planning Commission needs to form a subcommittee who will review suggested changes from staff and also involve the public. The Planning Commission will make their recommendation and forward this to City Council. Through this process, there will be opportunity for the public to comment and make suggestions. I hope we can get this accomplished in three to four months. Johnson: I would defer the appointment of a subcommittee until the new chairman is elected. I assume this could be done at the first meeting in April. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 Page 35 NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Johnson: I asked Don Marr to convene the nominating committee. Marr: We offer the following as our slate: Conrad Odom, Chair Bob Estes, Vice Chair Lee Ward, Secretary Johnson: Pursuant to our bylaws, that election will be held the first meeting in the month of April. Conklin: I would like to thank Phyllis for 6 years of service. Staff appreciates all your hard work in making tough decisions. You are fair and our meetings have been run efficiently. We will miss you. Johnson: I appreciate that. It was an honor to be appointed to the Commission and to be reappointed. I see this as an important Job. It was a distinct honor to be elected as your chairman. Thank you very much for that. We have done a good Job in working together. We deal with difficult issues, we have fought the issues and have not fought each other and I think that has allowed us to do better work. If we have a legacy, I would hope it to be connections between neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods must be connected and work together. My successor will be Nancy Allen. I'm sure she'll work hard and do a good job. You will meet her at the next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.