Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on September 8, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN PPL 03-13.00: Preliminary Plat (Lot 17, Steele Crsg.) Approved Page 4 LSD 03-21.00: Large Scale Development (Jones Motor Cars, pp 213) Page 10 Approved VAC 03-10.00: Vacation (Brickey, pp 409) Forwarded to City Council Page 31 ADM 03-22.00: Sloan Tree Ordinance Variance (Legacy Pointe Subdivision) Page 36 Forwarded to City Council MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Christian Vaught Nancy Allen Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Craig Camagey Renee Thomas Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 2 Hoover: Welcome to the September 8th Planning Commission meeting. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Ostner being absent. Thomas: There are eight Commissioners present. Hoover: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the August 25`h meeting? Motion: Allen: I move for approval of the minutes. Church: I will second it. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Church. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you. We have four items on the agenda tonight. Before we start our agenda we have an announcement from the City of Fayetteville Engineering Department from our City Engineer, Gary Coover. He wants to give the Planning Commission a little information so he doesn't have to sit through our meeting. Coover: Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, I am Gary Coover. I am the fairly new City Engineer here at the City of Fayetteville. I started in April. I just wanted to let you know that one of the first major new initiatives we are going to do in the Engineering Department is conduct a city wide sidewalk survey. I think you asked for this a couple of years ago and I think it is the overwhelming success of the CADIS program this summer, which is the Community Asset Development and Information System program that was done in conjunction with the center for Applied Spatial Technology at the University and the City of Fayetteville public school system. They had a couple of the high school students do a survey within a mile of every school here in Fayetteville, all fifteen schools and using very low tech technology along with some very high tech technology they developed an amazing map of where we do and don't have sidewalks. What we are going to be doing in the Engineering Department is expand Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 3 that to cover the entire city, which will be our first blush of where sidewalks are and where they aren't. It worked out really good because the school system wanted to know where they were and I want to know where they aren't because my job of course is to help build new ones and put new corridors in. Once we find out exactly what we have in our system and then we are going to work with the school system, work with you, the neighborhood associations, and the Council and identify major corridors where we need to improve sidewalks. Our second level of our survey would be looking at conditions such as gaps, ramps, driveway problems, hazards or obstructions or things like that and also where we need to build new sidewalks. Basically I just wanted to do a quick announcement tonight to let you know that this survey is starting and this first phase we hope to have finished by the end of this year and then we will start identifying and prioritizing major corridors from there with the idea of having as much connectivity as possible in our sidewalk system. We have areas just a half a block from our town square that do not have access ramps so we are going to try to particularly correct things like that and this would be a road map that we can give to our Transportation Department so we can build a first class sidewalk system. I just wanted to let you al know that the project is officially under way. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Gary. Coody: I just wanted to thank the new City Engineer, Gary Coover, very much for his instrumental roll of putting this all together. Couple this with the idea that we are vastly improving our productivity as far as actually getting sidewalks in the ground goes. We put 1,600 feet of sidewalk on the ground last year, we are shooting for roughly 40,000 feet this year. Based on the reorganization that we did we were able to pull together a lot of equipment and personnel that we just couldn't do before. The actual work of pouring concrete, coupled with the actual plan and map of where that needs to go, we are going to see some massive improvements in our sidewalk program for increased pedestrian safety, a pedestrian friendly community and child safety around schools. I just wanted to thank all of our staff and you guys for all the work that you do to make this town so nice. Thanks. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 4 PPL 03-13.00: Preliminary Plat (Lot 17, Steele Crsg.) was submitted by James Koch, P.E. of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of James S. Irwin, Irwin Saviers Company for property located in Steele Crossing, Lot 17. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 18.25 acres. The request is to develop the property into 5 commercial lots (lots 17C -G) of 1.82, 2.03, 2.04, 5.75 and 5.11acres with 1.50 acres for Phase I and II of Van Asche Drive. Hoover: Thank you. Are there any comments from any of the Commissioners? Seeing none, we'll move on. Thank both of you. Item number one is a Preliminary Plat for Lot 17 at Steele Crossing. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This first item on the agenda involves lot 17 of Steele Crossing, also known as the CMN Business Park. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 18.25 acres. The request is to create a subdivision of the remaining portions of lot 17 that do exist currently. The subdivision will include five commercial lots varying in size from approximately .82 acres to about five acres. Two lots were previously split out from this lot 17 and those are indicated on your plat. Lot 17A, which is the Olive Garden and 17B which is under construction or soon to be under construction. These two lots will not be a part of this subdivision. Van Asche Drive is proposed to be extended and dead end in a cul-de-sac allowing improved public street right of way frontage for all five lots. The Van Asche Drive extension will be constructed to collector street standards, which is a standard 70' right of way. Due to the size of the lots proposed and their location within the Design Overlay District, each is required to be reviewed under the Large Scale Development process at the time of development. Surrounding land use does include, as I mentioned, the Marriott Courtyard hotel, which is soon to be under construction, the Olive Garden, vacant lots, west Mud Creek trail and dedicated tree preservation area to the north. The tree preservation existing on site currently is 20.4%. The required is 15% and the applicant is proposing to preserve 16.2%, therefore, no mitigation is required. Staff is recommending approval at this time of the proposed Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions. I will go over those for you. Planning Commission consideration of a variance request for a cul-de-sac which is longer than 500 feet. Applicant proposes a cul-de-sac of approximately 910 feet in length. 2) Cross access between each lot shall be required. 3) No additional curb cuts onto Van Asche Drive other than those indicated on the plat shall be allowed without Planning Commission approval. For those lots on the cul-de-sac, one curb cut per lot shall be allowed. Shared access is recommended. 4) The cul-de-sac shall be constructed in accordance with City Code, with a paved surface. Curb/Gutter, storm drains, and sidewalk construction around the cul-de-sac shall occur along with the development of this subdivision. 5) Van Asche Drive shall be dedicated as a public street at the time of Final Plat. Construction of said Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 5 street shall be in accordance with City Ordinances for a Collector Street. 6) Those lots fronting the West Mud Creek trail shall provide visual and physical pedestrian connections at the time of development. 7) The legend of the Preliminary plat shall reflect a coordinating hatched area and title that corresponds to the preservation area shown on the drawing. 8) The removal of trees on the proposed Lot 17D shall be prohibited. The existing grove shall be saved with protective measures in place until future development plans demonstrate that their removal is essential to the project's design. 9) The Trails and Greenways Coordinator shall approve the design and location of the drainage pipe and outflow structure for the detention pond prior to approval. This is to accommodate the West Mud Creek trail which is planned for the location to the north of the site. 10) A floodplain development permit shall be required prior to any construction within the floodplain, in addition to grading and drainage permits. Items eleven through fifteen are standard conditions. We do have an additional condition that we would like the Planning Commission to consider. I handed that out before the meeting. Planning Commission determination of a traffic signal at Mall Avenue and Van Asche Drive on lot 17 prior to Final Plat approval. Staff is recommending that a supplement to the 1998 CMN Business Park II traffic study be provided by the applicant in order to better evaluate the traffic condition in this area with the proposed commercial subdivision. That is all I have. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Koch: Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing the Steele Crossing Preliminary Plat that you see before you this evening. Basically, we agree with all of the conditions of the approval. However, one item that I would like to request is first it is my understanding that the fly over that had been planned some years back is no longer a part of the Master Street Plan for the City of Fayetteville. It is something that I believe has been removed and therefore, the .97 acres that was previously dedicated for this should be something that we can get back through whatever measures that the City of Fayetteville deems necessary to do that with whether it is a Vacate easement or property line adjustment, that is something that we would like to gain in addition to the approval of the Preliminary Plat this evening. Hoover: Is that all for your presentation? Koch: Yes Ma'am. Hoover: We will open this up to public comment now, PPL 03-13.00 for Lot 17 at Steele Crossing. Is there any member of the public that would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 6 Commission and to the applicant. Staff, could you respond to the flyover question? I wasn't aware that we were giving that up. Warrick: I was just reviewing the maps in your packet that reflect the Master Street Plan and there was a portion of the Master Street Plan that was amended that affected lot 17 and that was a connection of Van Asche Drive extending east and connecting up to Shiloh Drive to run parallel to Hwy. 71 Business. The map that I am looking at and what I believe to be accurate Master Street Plan maps, do still show the flyover. We will certainly work with the applicant and if they choose to make that request it will have to go through the Vacation procedure to obtain Planning Commission's recommendation and then City Council's approval to vacate city right of way. That right of way was dedicated in the original Preliminary Plat process for Phase II of the subdivision. It is city property, city right of way right now. We do not have plans on the books currently through the capital improvements program to construct the flyover at this point in time. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners, are there questions? Estes: Koch: Mr. Irwin, you have requested a variance of the cul-de-sac and you want a cul-de-sac that is 910' in length, could you explain to us why you are requesting the almost double in length for the cul-de-sac? Because of the size of the lots this particular tract of property is best served with a cul-de-sac ending in the development. However, right now we don't know what is actually going to be developed at the end of the street so we are just reserving that to create as much flexibility as possible for future development. For the record Commissioner Estes, my name is Mr. Koch. Estes: I'm sorry. That was a good explanation, thank you. Shackelford: I have one question for the applicant and a couple of questions for staff. First for the applicant, you said that you guys are in agreement with all of the conditions of approval, does that include the condition for proposed for the revised traffic study? Koch: Yes, absolutely I agree with that. I will be in contact with Ernie Peters soon so that we can accomplish that before we bring it forward for Final Plat. Shackelford: A couple of questions for staff if I could. First of all, on condition of approval number eight regarding the removal of the trees on lot 17B, it talks about how these are going to be saved with protective measures in place until future development plans demonstrate that their removal is Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 7 Warrick: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Hoover: Warrick: Hoover: Warrick: Hoover: essential for the project's design. Two questions, first of all does that mean that a potential buyer of this property is going to have to come before this Commission with the burden of proof of showing that the trees would have to be removed, is that correct? Through the Large Scale Development process that is correct. The second thing, will that be noted on the Final Plat somewhere? Yes. My other question, and this is just for my benefit, on condition number six regarding the trail, what is a visual connection of a pedestrian trail? We want users of these lots to understand that there is a pedestrian pathway that is within a reachable distance. We want them to see that there is some kind of activity in that area so they can then access the trail. Is it going to be a sign that says trail here? I think that we will need to look at that with each of the individual lots. There are really only two lots in addition to the Marriott Courtyard, which has already been approved, that this will directly affect that have access to the trails. I think the development plans for those lots will need to look at specifically when they are coming through but you can see that there is something going on there and then having the access to the trail is very important. Thank you very much. I have a question for staff. Are all of these lots in the Overlay District or some of them? I believe that is reflected on the plat. There is a very small portion of one lot that is probably all floodplain area on here, lot G. The Overlay District boundaries are reflected as the dashed heavy black line. The floodplain area is the area outside of the Overlay District. So most of it is in the Overlay? Yes. My question is I noticed the greenspace is 14' or 10' along the street, do we require more than that in the Overlay District? Warrick: Are you talking about the greenspace between the sidewalk and the curb? Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 8 Hoover: Yes. Warrick: That is within the right of way and that is consistent with the Master Street Plan. The 25' is outside of the right of way. Hoover: That will come up at Large Scale? Warrick: Right. Hoover: 14' is the normal amount? Warrick: Between 10' and 15' is the average for a collector street. Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other questions Commissioners? MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of PPL 03-13.00 granting the requested variance for a cul-de-sac which is longer than 500' for a length of approximately 910' and a supplement to the conditions of approval that this applicant provide a supplement to the 1998 CMN Business Park II traffic study in order to better evaluate the traffic condition in the area with the proposed commercial subdivision of lot 17. Bunch: Second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there anymore discussion? Shackelford: Madam Chair? Hoover: Yes Commissioner Shackelford? Shackelford: I have one more question. We are requiring that this traffic study update be completed if, based on the findings of that traffic study, we determine that there is a need for a traffic signal at this intersection, at what opportunity would we have an option to look at that? Would that be at Final Plat? I guess that is a better question of staff. Warrick: Yes. We expect to have enough information to evaluate the traffic conditions based on the build out of this subdivision and make a recommendation at the time of Final Plat. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 9 Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-13.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 10 LSD 03-21.00: Large Scale Development (Jones Motor Cars, pp 213) was submitted by Mandy Bunch, P.E. of EB Landworks, Inc. on behalf of Mr. Mike Jones of Whitfield Motor Co. /Jones Motorcars for property located at 3535 N. College Avenue. The property is located in the Design Overlay District, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.57 acres. The request is to construct a 4,678 s.f. Mercedes- Benz Center and a 13,009 s.f. Collision Center with 48 parking spaces proposed. Hoover: Item number two on the agenda is LSD 03-21.00 for Jones Motor Cars. Pate: This property is located at 3535 N. College Avenue. It is located in the Design Overlay District and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.57 acres. The applicant is requesting to construct a new Mercedes Benz center and a detached collision center to the north of the existing Jones Motor Cars automobile dealership on College Avenue. The actual site limits is on the same lot as the Jones Motor Cars automobile dealership and I think it is important to keep that in mind. The proposed limits are basically to the north of the existing dealership and utilizes the existing curb cut. Surrounding land use and zoning is primarily C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Merrill Lynch, Proctor and Gamble is to the north. Jones Motor Cars is to the south. Webster University and a commercial strip to the east and to the west is vacant at this time. The right of way being dedicated at this time the applicant is proposing to dedicate no additional right of way. Currently there is 40' of right of way from centerline existing on College Avenue, which is Hwy. 71B. An additional 15' of right of way to reach the required 55' from centerline for the Master Street Plan for a principal arterial is required. The applicant is requesting that no additional right of way be dedicated and there is an attached letter that addresses this with your packets. Staff is not in favor of this request. Staff is recommending that the developer install a 6' sidewalk for the entire length of the frontage along College Avenue. Specific sidewalk location will need to be coordinated with the Sidewalk Administrator due to existing constraints. No other street improvements are proposed or required by staff except for the removal of the unused drive and curb cut along College Avenue. Staff has made some findings with regard to the Design Overlay District and I will go over a few of those for you. Particularly, the greenspace requirement in the Design Overlay District is 25' as opposed to 15' normally required in commercial districts. That is exclusive of right of way. The applicant has indicated the required 25' of greenspace landscaped in accordance with the city regulations for the Design Overlay District. This 25' however, is measured from the existing right of way line without the required dedication amount. Staff is not in support of this request as noted on the site plan. The project location is currently vacant and a number of opportunities are available with proposed structures. The parking drive aisle arrangement and site boundaries to meet this minimum requirement without undue hardship being placed upon the developer. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 11 Staff is recommending the minimum 55' from centerline right of way be dedicated as required with a 25' of landscaped greenspace exclusive of right of way. Another finding is to do with the signage in the Design Overlay District. Each separate non-residential lot is allowed a single ground mounted or monument sign not to exceed 6' in height and 75 sq.ft. The applicant is proposing to utilize a monument sign at this time. There is also one wall sign may be installed per business per highway or street frontage. There is one frontage on this project location and the applicant is actually proposing, as you can see by the elevations, at least two signs, one being the Jones Mercedes emblem sign and the other being the Mercedes Benz center which staff has determined to be two separate and distinct signs. Another issue with the monument sign as well, there is currently a pylon or pole sign on site. In the Design Overlay District those are not allowed. It is currently a non -conforming use. If the monument sign option is utilized staff would like to see that pylon sign or pole sign come down. Otherwise, the pylon sign can remain as it is without considerable alterations but without the monument sign. Lighting is also an issue in the Design Overlay District. An additional consideration not to exceed 35' in height and utilizing sodium lighting fixtures. The applicant has requested a waiver to allow for the use of metal halide lighting. Staff is in support of that request. It is consistent with other automobile dealerships within the city. All other standards do apply. Another finding that staff is charged to make with regards to the Design Overlay District is access to the site whether it be pedestrian or multi -model, the applicant is proposing to provide two bicycle racks for this new development and the recommended sidewalk construction along College Avenue will also hopefully accommodate pedestrian traffic in a more accessible manner than what is existing at this time. Non-residential developments and multiple building sites, in the case of non-residential development involving multiple buildings or sites, we have to look at each one of those lots as one overall large lot. The applicant is proposing to construct new structures on the portion of the site currently developed as Jones Motor Cars. All of the structures will be located on that one common flatted parcel of land. Therefore, city ordinance requires that the development be reviewed for the site in its entirety. The existing Jones Motor Cars parking lot is a non -conforming structure in that it does not comply with the current ordinances. What staff has to do is make a finding based on the percentage of the additional structure as an addition to the existing structure. The proposed percentage verses the existing percentage and we have to look at on a graduated scale the proposed landscaping islands that can be accommodated in the existing parking lot. Staff is recommending that sidewalks be constructed again, along College Avenue to help with that and the applicant has proposed additional landscape islands at the entrance of the existing dealership for better visual public affect. The parking required is 48 spaces, provided is 103 spaces, which includes vehicle display and storage spaces allowed without interior landscape Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 12 islands as allowed by ordinance. Fourteen trees are being planted on site for tree preservation mitigation. Staff is recommending approval of the Large Scale Development with the following conditions and I will go over those for you. 1) The plat shall reflect 55 feet right-of-way dedication from centerline. Any lesser dedication of right-of-way than that required by the Master Street Plan shall be approved by City Council. 2) The required 25 feet of landscaped greenspace as required in the Design Overlay District shall be provided exclusive of the required right-of-way, along the site project limits right-of-way frontage as depicted on the site plan. 3) All work on Hwy 71B shall be approved by AHTD. 4) A twenty-five (25) foot utility easement exclusive of the 55 -feet from centerline right-of-way along Hwy 71B shall be granted and indicated on the plat pursuant to the request of utility representatives. 5) Any tree removal within utility easements shall be approved by the Landscape Administrator. 6) With future development of the remainder of this lot, the parking lot shall be constructed to comply with current City ordinances. 7) A six-foot sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards along College Avenue for the entire property's frontage. Exact location shall be coordinated with the City of Fayetteville Sidewalk Administrator. 8) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff believes the showroom elevations indicate a structure that meets the requirements as set forth in the Commercial Design Standards. The Collision Center is less articulated than the Mercedes-Benz dealership, however is in a location that is difficult to view from the public street. 9) Planning Commission determination of a waiver to allow the use of metal halide lighting fixtures. 10) Planning Commission determination of signage requirements in the Design Overlay District. The Mercedes-Benz dealership is permitted one wall sign for the structure's frontage onto Hwy 71B, in accordance with Design Overlay District requirements. A single ground -mounted (monument) sign a maximum of six feet high, 75 square feet in display surface area, shall also be allowed on the site, a minimum of ten feet from the right-of-way line. If the monument sign is utilized, the existing pylon sign shall be removed. If the pylon sign remains, the monument sign shall not be permitted. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Bunch, M.: Good evening, my name is Mandy Bunch and I am here representing Mike Jones who is also here. Mr. Ken Shireman is the architect on the project and he is also here this evening. Basically we have kind of come through the process this far and addressed all of the other items that staff has required except for the additional right of way dedication. Mr. Jones does not want to dedicate the additional right of way and we understand that that is a City Council decision and you guys need to go through this Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 13 Jones: process with us. I want to touch a couple of things, I had some questions earlier about the percentage of improvement in the parking lot. Basically, there is an existing 21,300 sq.ft. of building. We are proposing an additional 17,687 sq.ft. It comes out to be basically an 83% number. There are currently 55 stalls used for their employee parking and service bays so we took that percentage to that number and came up with 46 stalls so an additional 46 stalls received interior landscaping in the front of the parking lot. If there are any other questions about that I would be happy to address that. Basically, what we did with the landscape islands, we added some delineation in the front dries and also clumped or pocketed all of the required landscape stalls in the front of the development. It works better for visual appearance of the site from the highway. It does, however, take out some prime display stalls so it is kind of a balance of priorities there. We have met all of the other ordinances except the right of way that I know of except for the request for the metal halide lights verses the sodium and the signage issue. The architect is probably going to speak to the signage issue as well as Mr. Jones. I am going to be quiet for right now and let them address their things and when you guys have specific items that are related to the rest of it I will be more than happy to address those. Good evening, I am Mike Jones, it is nice to be with you this evening. I know several of your faces from our dealership and it is good to see you all on that part of it but for many of the others, Jones Motor Cars was originally Whitfield Motor Company and began its heritage here in Fayetteville in 1934. We will be addressing our 70 year anniversary this next year. We started where the Fayetteville Radisson is right now. We were just off the square and were there until 1979 when we moved out to our present location where we have been since then. We have seen a lot of growth and a lot of things come and go up and down the highway right there in front of us and we appreciate what the Council and the Planning Commission is trying to do. I happen to disagree whole heartedly with what city staff says is not creating an undue hardship for our dealership. We have worked very hard trying to meet the ordinances and the requirements that the city has proposed. The biggest issue that we have to deal with of course is this 55' of right of way proposed for Hwy. 71 or North College there in front of us. At this point in time I would like to just share a few facts with you in regards to some of the setbacks that are currently there and hope that you understand where I am coming from in regards to why I do not want to relinquish this additional footage. First of all, this is prime display space for us. We are in somewhat of a disadvantage in that our southeast corner lot is some 6' below the street level at that point where we graduate or actually taper out and flatten out on the north level of our dealership. At that particular point if you move me back another 15' at that point in time probably a retaining wall will be required and it will just absorb more or encroach more into my display Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 14 space. Currently with what has been proposed at this point with that additional 15' when it is taken out for city right of way will take away approximately 25 of my prime display spaces right off the very front of my building at that particular point in time. As you can see, I'm very concerned in regards to that. That is approximately 20% of my prime display space and I feel that is unreasonable to request me to give up that much of my property in display space when there is no proposed project for Hwy. 71 to be widened, no funded projects that I'm aware of for 71 at this point in time. I have great concerns over that and I do believe that it creates a tremendous undue hardship on my dealership and a tremendous disadvantage of what my competitors have currently right now. Some additional facts I'd like to share with you, we currently sit 21' back from the curb of Hwy. 71 to the front curbs of my parking spaces at our dealership. To give you a little bit of an idea with regards to the other properties that are around me at this point in time is that if you go right next door to Lewis Ford and Lewis Chrysler is south of our location, they sit 12' back from the curb of Hwy. 71. If you go across the street to Scott Plaza, which is built directly across from us, is 16'. If you go to Webster University, which is just north and east of us, they are set back 12'. If you go to the Village Inn or Kinko's their parking lot is set back 10', and if you go directly across the street from me to Superior Nissan, they are set back 8'. I believe I am one of the greenest dealerships in Northwest Arkansas. I have more grass space and I have more trees than any other dealership bar none. Just to give you an example, we have seventeen trees on our south and east side of our dealership, they all sit on my property. They are shared and Ford benefits from them and they are shared and Merrill Lynch benefits from them but they sit on my property and my easements. We also have 50 to 100 trees that are on our north boundary. Granted this is a scrub tree line but it has grown up as a result of our dealership being put there some 20 years ago. If you compare that again to what you see around us, you go right next door, Lewis Ford has one tree in front of their dealership and no shrubs or plantings. You go next door to Lewis Chrysler, they have two trees and they have a few plantings in front of their dealership. If you go across the street to Superior Nissan, they have one tree in front of their dealership. If you go to Scott Plaza, they have zero trees on the street line or on 71 but they do have about a dozen trees on Masonic Drive. If you go to Webster University, they have five trees in front on Hwy. 71, they have about six more Bradford Pears on their side or entry access between them and Scott Plaza. Many of these businesses, just like myself, have many trees behind us as well. I believe that we are a very green and a very tree friendly environment at our dealership. With the addition of what we have proposed we will be adding more planting islands and more trees as well. That is why the variance I think can be waived at this point in time. It does create a tremendous undue hardship. It takes my parking away. It also gives us additional trees in which we want in the city. We have plenty of those that we are Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 15 doing but I don't feel like I should have to share the undue burden of carrying all the trees right there in that 200 or 300 yard sector of northern Fayetteville. I will do my part but I have five, ten or twenty times as much greenspace and tree space as what any of my surrounding businesses have around us. That is why we have applied for the variance. We feel that it is critical that we receive that variance. We will be making the city more beautiful, we will be enhancing our property, we will be adding additional facilities to serve and create more revenue for the city. Secondly, I would like to address the issue of signage. I am sorry I do not know all of the technicalities nor do I want to about what all the signage is in Fayetteville. The reality of the situation is you go right next door from my dealership to the Lewis Group and Lewis Chrysler and Lewis Ford each have their own separate pylon signs. You go up the road one mile from me to the Superior Group, which is David Sloan. The Superior Pontiac and Cadillac and Superior Isuzu each have their own pylon signs. You want to go the Overlay District, you go to Landers Auto Park, you will see five separate buildings, there is a minimum of at least two signs on every building, three on two buildings and five signs on their main used car building. I am not asking or anything unreasonable. I only wish to be treated fairly. That is what we are proposing. The manufacturers of General Motors and Mercedes Benz will never, ever agree to having the same signage on the same pole. It will never happen. We have created what we thought was a tremendous compromise in incorporating signage into the side of our building. The one main Mercedes star meets all of the Mercedes requirements. The Mercedes Benz center is a facia that Mercedes Benz requires for all new dealerships. I wish I could get it done. I have been after the Council for twelve years to have a separate sign for Mercedes Benz but nobody is budging here. What I need is some help. I need some help from my city to help us do what's right for everybody. As you can see, it is not ugly and there sure are not as many signs as what you will see out at Landers Auto Park. You have all probably been by my dealership, you know that I am not one to paint the windows. I am not one to stick up a bunch of banners and everything all over the place. We try to do it with class and distinction. That is why we felt like it was a tremendous opportunity to blend signage into the building, a monument sign is certainly a compromise on our parts in regards to what Mercedes Benz as a manufacturer wants. They want their own 20' pylon sign out there, that is not going to happen. We feel like we can compromise somewhere along the way and reach signage that can be seen by most people. The other part of this that is very difficult and a lot of people do no understand is that as you approach my building from the north or in the south bound lane you cannot see my building or signage until you pass Merrill Lynch because of that tree line that is on my north boundary. We have not even pretended to try to address that at this particular point. Hopefully a monument sign will be tall enough. I can't tell you how many times people come by and pass our dealership two or three times a day and say Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 16 "I didn't see ya."; "Well, I missed ya.' ; "I had to turn around and come back." because they just didn't see us. That is what we are trying to address is to have not too much signage but just enough signage so we can be seen. Signage is still the number one advertising tool of any business and most of you all know that and without it it is very difficult. I hope you can see the building is the highest quality and certainly designed to as you can see, almost give a red brick type look, a bank type look basically is what I was looking for on that. It is going to be of the highest quality only as would be expected of a Mercedes Benz dealership and this is what we are trying to address and our space is extremely limited. I feel like I've already been easemented to death. I have a 25' easement on my entire north boundary that consumes some 15,750 sq.ft. of my property because of a utility easement. Our topography is not gracious to us. When we built the property originally we had to come up some 30' in the back corner and as a result we have some very steep slopes both on our north and west side which prohibit us from moving back and to the north without tremendous and great expense. With those things in mind, we have to work within the limits and the confines of what we have in our topography and with what the city regulations are. We hope that we have been able to propose an agreement or a facility that will work for us and will benefit and be beautiful to the city. Again, I just want to reiterate the city staff has made it clear they feel like there is no undue hardship here. I disagree whole heartedly. There is a tremendous undue hardship being created by these issues that have been raised. We will work hand in hand trying to ensure that we can get as much of this done as we can but I do need your help and your support to be able to achieve that. Thank you. Hoover: I would like to open this Large Scale Development up for public comment for Jones Motor Cars. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Commissioners, do you want to go item by item? Shackelford: Madam Chair, can we start with the city attorney kind of explaining, if you would in detail, obviously a lot of the conversation we have heard about is regarding the right of way dedication on North College. My understanding is that is something that would take City Council action, correct? Williams: It would take both actions. The City Council makes the final decision. The Unified Development Code specifically addresses this and it says the Planning Commission may recommend a lesser dedication in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulties. That is the standard that you are supposed to use. Then it goes on to say such lesser dedication shall be subject to approval by the City Council. That would go on to the City Council. You would make a recommendation one way or the other but then the City Council would make the final decision. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 17 Shackelford: Thank you for that clarification. Estes: If I could ask Mr. Williams to opine on undue hardship. I know that we have had this discussion before and what is the finding that we must make to substantiate an undue hardship? Williams: It would need to be specific to this property itself so it would not be some general thing that any property would be looking at. The general rule is that you will comply with the Master Street Plan and its setbacks. The undue hardship you would look at would be consideration of what the applicant has told you. The fact that by moving the right of way back a certain length of space he would lose display area. There might have to be some sort of retaining wall built that could further make it difficult to display his product and also I think you would look at the surrounding businesses that he is competing with and consider whether this is putting his business at an undue hardship compared to his neighbors. It is really difficult to define. I think that basically you can look at almost any factor that you want to in considering whether or not he has proven his case and whether it is a hardship for him in this circumstance. Estes: Would this be an overstatement, and I'm referring back to the dialogue that we have had before that undue hardship does not mean extraordinary expense. Undue hardship means the inability to use the property for the intended use and purpose, is that a fair statement? Williams: I would say that you could get to a point where the expense would be so much that it would be undue hardship but expense or a minor expense or minor difficulties is not enough. It has to be an undue hardship. It has to be something fairly substantial for you to be willing to make that recommendation to the City Council I think. Vaught: I have an additional question on this. On variances for setbacks, not the dedication but the 25' setback, is that something that must go before the City Council or is that approved here? Williams: It is funny, they do have a separate variance requirement for provisions within the Unified Development Code. Chapter 156.03(A) and it again, talks about undue hardships as they apply to the proposed development including, but not limited to, financial environmental or regulatory, you must find the situations unique to the subject property and then you may grant a variance so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest served. However, there is a specific variance provision within the Unified Development Code just for the Master Street Plan, that is the one I read first. I think that is the one that you probably ought to use because that covers specifically a deviation from the setback requirements of the Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 18 Master Street Plan so that is probably the most relevant variance section for you to consider. Vaught: I also had an additional question for staff. Is the easement or the dedication of the additional 15' the entire length of the property or just the new development portion? Warrick: It is for the entire length of the property. Hoover: Are there any other questions about right of ways? Bunch: A question for staff. Not too long ago there was a Large Scale Development that came through for the next door neighbors to this project for the Lewis group, at that time was additional right of way on North College taken do you recall? Warrick: I believe that that project had several pieces of property that were deeded separately. I would have to do some research to find you that exact answer. I don't know for sure. Bunch: I seem to remember the side street dedication along that and most of the work was on the back side, the west side of the property but I couldn't recall whether or not there was any dedication on North College. Warrick: I will have to look it up. Bunch: Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion about right of way or questions? Vaught: Right of way and the landscaping setback or just right of way right now? Hoover: I was just going with condition one. Vaught: To me one and two kind of can be the same in the fact that I have a hard time giving up right of way because if we ever do something we are going to have to purchase that in the future, but the 25' landscaped greenspace that is required by the Design Overlay District, that being on the fringe of it and really screened, I drive by this every day on the way to work, and you cannot see this from anywhere north of the property. I would be more inclined to reduce that to 15' possibly and require the dedication if it is something that staff and the applicant could agree to just to keep it more consistently with what is on this property and what is surrounding it and the fact that you really can't even see it from I-540 and they would really only be losing five additional feet of space. That is just an idea of possibly a compromise. That is why I was asking about variances. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 19 Williams: I didn't understand, I thought you were still talking about street right of way. Vaught: No, landscaping setbacks. Williams: What I read for you before was a general requirement but there is one for the Design Overlay also that talks about undue hardship if it is undue hardship shown by the developer. It is basically the same sort of thing you are considering. It is undue hardship and no matter which way you go has the developer been able to show that, if he has and substantial justice may be done by granting a variance then you can in fact, do that and you could do that on the greenspace requirement. Vaught: For staff, are there other instances in the design Overlay District where we have given a variance of the setback requirement? Warrick: I can't recall one. Vaught: I am just thinking about Futrall and Millsap. That is where my office is. Warrick: That subdivision is exempted from the Design Overlay District. CMN Park I, which is basically flanking both sides of Millsap, there were three subdivisions that were legislated exempted when the Design Overlay District was adopted and that was one of them because it had already been platted and was under construction at the time in 1994 when that ordinance was adopted by Council. Vaught: You can't think of any other instances? Warrick: I can't. It doesn't mean that there aren't any. I think that it would probably come to mind had we done one. Vaught: I don't know, that is just an idea. I don't know what the applicant thinks about that prospect or even city staff what they think about the prospect of doing that. Bunch, M.: Can I jump in for just a second? Vaught: Yes. Bunch, M.: There are a couple of things I can shed a little bit of light on. One being the Lewis development. There was additional right of way required along Longview as well as improvements, street improvements, percentage complete, money in lieu of street improvements on that street. There was no right of way required on North College. Then, this is Fulbright Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 20 Expressway. Here is Mr. Jones' property. I believe on page 12 of your packets it actually shows the limits of the Design Overlay District in your packet, does that look kind f right? Warrick: It is page 2.12. Bunch, M.: It is my understanding and Dawn can correct me, this is the subdivision that is exempt for this area, right? Warrick: That is correct. Bunch, M: This line represented here is the 660' offset, which is by ordinance what the Design Overlay District is bound by. This development is exempt from that and they lie wholly within the 660'. Mr. Jones' property fell within the Design Overlay District only because this ramp area was taken into account. This 665', his boundary comes in like that. It is the dark area on your plan. It kind of comes down in a bowl and takes into account part of his property. That has been one thing that we recognize that it is platted area and it is within the Design Overlay District but if you look at the spirit of that ordinance we are definitely screened from the expressway. I don't think anybody can refute that. I just wanted to give you those facts. Williams: I could note for the record too the reason that the other commercial subdivision was excluded was because it was already platted so the Council at that point grandfathered it in in order for it to not have to conform with the Overlay District. Of course, at that point in time Mr. Jones' property was already platted in too but he already built on it. It was very similar except it already had a structure on it when this other part, most of that other development had not actually been built yet. Warrick: I think it was primarily vacant. Williams: That is why it was grandfathered in and is not subject to the Overlay District. Hoover: Are there any other questions along that line? Would the architect mind explaining the building materials to us so we can discuss commercial design guidelines and see if anyone has any questions on that? Shireman: I am Ken Shireman. We tried to design this building to let Mike have what he wants and needs to sell more cars and to keep him in Fayetteville. He has asked us to give a bit of a southern style to this with the red brick and Mercedes, all of their colors, the sign will be blue and it will be silver, everything surrounding it. That is pretty much all they allow. We have tried to do that. When we are talking about materials, we have two Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 21 buildings. The showroom itself would be brick, precast concrete and this sign right here will be metallic silver and then the letters will be cut into that. This sign sits at a 45° angle to the building, it is actually a corner sign. You are seeing that Mercedes emblem as an ellipse because the sign actually faces southeast. Because you obviously can't see the building from the north so we want to give a good shot at the sign so as you come south and look down over the building you will be able to see it. We tried to incorporate it into the architecture of the building so that it is not just something stuck in the lot out there. We tried to tie it all, we want to do this with steel and this will all be metallic silver also. We tried to bring these colors all together. Essentially, the Mercedes showroom building is done with precast concrete and we have some stucco bands in there but basically the materials that we are using on there are brick, precast, the composite wall panel and stucco. The collision center building is pretty much the lower 40 inches of the building will be split faced CMU. Everything from there up will be stucco. That is pretty much it on that building. Both of them are conventional steel frame buildings. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Thank you. Moving on to another issue of conditions. Does anyone have a problem with the metal halide lighting fixtures? Anthes: I notice on condition nine they did say that the lighting shall be shielded, directed downward and utilizing full cutoff fixtures. Is that what is specified and what you will be using? Shireman: We haven't done any. The lighting will have to comply with the ordinance. We have not done construction documents on the buildings. We haven't specified any lighting fixtures as such but obviously, what we do will have to be in compliance with the ordinance. The ones that are used on other parking lots pretty much only throw a down beam. You can't really do drop globes where you see them from the side and this sort of thing. That is normally what we use though. Anthes: Will the applicant agree to full cut off fixtures? Jones: I don't know what you mean full cut off fixtures. Hoover: I think if it is in the conditions of approval they will have to. Anthes: Good. That is what I wanted to know, thank you. Shireman: We will do what we have to do to comply with the conditions obviously on the lighting standards. Jones: Are you talking about just a straight down light like I have or any of the Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 22 other car dealership have? That's what you're referring to right? Hoover: They are specific. Staff, do you know what the other car dealerships have? Warrick: I am not able to go through the various dealership and tell you what kind of lighting they have. The full cut off fixtures are the boxes that don't have any kind of bulbs exposed underneath those boxes. They are specific types of light and they do create a down light. Jones: I believe that is what we currently have and that is what we intend to match. Shackelford: I was just going to ask for clarification purposes, this is what we required when we did Landers the last time. It is full cut off but we did allow the other type of light. It would basically be, if you've been out to the Landers Park, the same thing. Shireman: We have that same type of lighting in the parking lot. Hoover: Great, thank you for enlightening us. Moving on to the signage discussion. Just to refresh my memory, what is on the pylon sign? Jones: Currently our pylon sign has the three different manufacturers of General Motors, Buick, Oldsmobile, GMC Truck, and then it has our name, Jones as the fourth part of that sign. Hoover: Thank you. Discussion Commissioners? Bunch: Madam Chair, I know that some of the other dealerships have two streets of frontage and that is why they are allowed the two signs on two sides of the building. Since this is in an area right at the edge of the Overlay District as Commissioner Vaught described, and e are looking at a transition and also with not having a competitive disadvantage, the 45° offset Mercedes logo sign and the Mercedes Benz center sign, if you look at the square feet of those two combined it is within the 200 sq ft limit and I have personally no problem with allowing those two as parts of one sign, we are not plastering signs all over the building. I think is meets the spirit of the Overlay District and it also works as a transition from our existing situation on North College into the Overlay District and also it is not visible from the Overlay District, or from most portions of the Overlay District that create the 660' border that bisects this property. From the standpoint of the wall sign I have no problem with that. The monument sign, I don't know yet. I want to hear what the other Commissioners have to say on that. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 23 Estes: If I understand Commissioner Bunch's comments correctly, Commissioner Bunch has no problem with the one wall sign being denominated as we see on the board. That is with the Jones and then the Mercedes star and then the Mercedes Benz Center, is that correct? You are satisfied that that is one sign? Bunch: That is correct. Estes: The second issue then becomes the single ground monument sign. If I understand staff's comments correctly, if the monument sign is used then the pylon sign goes. If the monument sign is not used the pylon sign stays, is that right? Warrick: Yes Sir. Estes: That is at the option of Mr. Jones? Warrick: Yes Sir. Hoover: Can I ask staff, what does the monument sign have on it? Warrick: In your small packet of elevation near the last page is an elevation of the monument sign proposal. Shackelford: A question of staff, on that monument sign that is being proposed, it will face North College is that correct? Warrick: I believe it is proposed to be perpendicular to North College so that it can be read from a north and south direction. Shackelford: Thank you. Hoover: Staff, can I ask on Landers, does each one of those dealerships, Honda and Toyota have a separate monument sign? Warrick: There were several monument signs approved for Landers through the variance process that was in addition to a wall signage package. Landers is a little bit different in that it does have frontage on two or in some cases, three, street frontages and therefore, additional wall signage is permitted by right through the Overlay District ordinance. The monument signs though did go through an appeal process through the Board of Sign Appeals. Hoover: Thank you. Shackelford: I will carry Commissioner Bunch's comments a little bit further. I agree Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 24 with what he is saying regarding the sign that is depicted on the front of the building there. My personal feelings about the monument sign, I think personally I could get comfortable with that sign being allowed on this property as well. We are in kind of a hybrid situation in the fact that this property is somewhat in the Overlay District, somewhat not in the Overlay District. As I interpret the sign issue with the Overlay District it is more to protect the view from Fulbright Expressway. Obviously, this sign is going to be directed more towards the existing frontage that has been on this property for the last twenty years, which is North College. I don't think that it is going to be a detriment to anybody, in fact, I think it might improve the visibility of the company as well as improve the visibility of the property. I personally would support some sort of variance to allow the monument sign without requiring the removal of the existing Jones Motor sign that is in place. Hoover: Thank you. Estes: Madam Chair, if I understand correctly, with the conditions of approval as they are now drafted, if Mr. Jones chooses the monument sign the pylon sign goes right? Warrick: That is correct. If I might, I don't know if that was the end of your comment. Estes: No, to me it seems to be a very simple solution. If we hold Mr. Jones to the condition of approval he cannot select a monument sign because he will lose his signage for his GM products so he has to forgo the monument sign to keep the pylon sign is that right? He wouldn't want to choose the monument sign because then he loses the signage for his GM products. Warrick: The amount of display surface area on the monument sign is 75 sq.ft. permitted. The amount of display surface area on the whole sign, under our current ordinance, is 75 sq.ft. The same amount of signage. One thing that I think is important to note, is that in the Overlay District there is a requirement that each separate non-residential lot shall be allowed a single ground mounted monument sign located on the building site. In the case of lots with double frontage, two street rights of way adjoining the lot, two ground mounted or monument signs would be permitted. Under standard regulations city wide any commercial lot is allowed one free standing sign. It can be a monument sign, it can be a pylon sign, the restriction in the Overlay District is that it be a monument sign and there is a condition in the Overlay District that if there is additional frontage that two monument signs can be permitted. In the standard regulation city wide commercial development there is not an option for two free standing signs. There is a regulation that there be one free standing sign on that lot. That is something that I think is important to consider when we are talking about Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 25 additional free standing signs for any site in the city whether it be the Overlay District or not. Estes: Do I understand correctly that there is no variances permissible from that requirement that that is an ordinance requirement? Warrick: That is an ordinance requirement. We do have a Board of Sign Appeals. Estes: Mr. Jones could choose the monument sign for his Mercedes Benz sign but then he would have to take down his pylon sign and replace it with a monument sign for his GM products? Warrick: We are not mandating the content of the sign. If he chooses to have a monument sign he can choose whatever goes into that 75 sq.ft. of display surface area. Estes: It would be permissible for him to choose the Mercedes Benz monument sign but then he is going to have to tear down the pylon sign, take it down and replace it with a monument sign? Warrick: No, that would be two free standing signs on the site. Estes: I'm confused. I thought he could have a monument sign on the lot that he is going to put the Mercedes Benz showroom. Warrick: It is not a separate lot. This is one property. Estes: Mr. Jones, I tried but it won't work for you. Jones: I appreciate that and I understand. I think if you make me do this I will have to subdivide the property and make it two separate pieces of property. That doesn't make sense because I can still build whatever I want. Let's be practical about this and think about from the fact of a variance here. I am not asking for anything more than what anybody else has in Fayetteville, not anybody. As a matter of fact, I'm asking for less. Estes: Let me ask staff this, is it permissible for Mr. Jones to choose the monument sign and then go to the Board of Sign Appeals and ask for a second free standing sign which would be a monument sign? Warrick: Yes. Estes: Can he go to the Board of Sign Appeals and ask for a second free standing sign which would be the existing pylon sign or does it just have to go? Warrick: I believe we can go and ask for that second free standing sign for the Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 26 Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Jones: Estes: Warrick: MOTION: Estes: existing sign on site. Thank you. I think that is all I have. I probably should've expanded a little bit further in what I said earlier and my support for a second additional sign. City regulation obviously is not ever going to be thorough enough to cover every situation. One point that the applicant made that I've seen in other dealings with car dealerships, there are specific requirements for advertising as far as what line can be advertised with what. He made a very good point. There is no way possible that there is ever going to be a situation where Mercedes will approve a situation where they can advertise on the same size with a General Motors product. I think this is a very unique situation based on the fact that this is a car lot located on this location that sales two separate products and based on the product type there is a need for two separate signages to show the type of products that he is selling. I know that Commissioner Estes made some very good points that this is city regulation and it is not in our privy to do that at this point but I would like the public record to show at least my opinion that the Board of Adjustment should take that into consideration. I think that we need to give this applicant the benefit of the doubt in this situation based on the fact that he is selling two separate product lines. There is a specific need for different signage that is going to be required by his vendors and that is why we have the whole appeal system and we would like to see him given that benefit at that meeting. I have a question for Mr. Jones. Is my memory correct that at one time you had the Mercedes star on the pylon sign? No Sir, that has never been the case. We have Mercedes Benz written on the front part of our showroom building now but we have never had the star on the sign. I have one more question for staff. Dawn, if we approve with condition of approval number ten as it is now written then the applicant can go to the Board of Sign Appeals? Yes Sir. I move that we approve LSD 03-21.00 with condition of approval number two to read the required 15' of landscaped greenspace and with all other conditions of approval to be as prepared and written by staff. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, is there a second? Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 27 Vaught: I have a quick question for staff. How would that affect the 25' utility easement? Warrick: We would still need to obtain a 25' utility easement to satisfy the need of buried utilities. Utility easements can run through landscaped areas as well as parking areas. Vaught: They could pave over it for display space? Warrick: They could pave over it and have driveways through it if necessary. Vaught: I would second the motion then. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Vaught. Shackelford: Madam Chair, this is somewhat of a unique situation because although I think it is a great idea that Commissioner Vaught had, it is a compromise we are trying to strike. I would like to give the applicant an opportunity to make comment on his opinion on this option that we are getting ready to vote on and requiring the 55' right of way from centerline, which is an increase of 15' but allowing a 10' right of way reduction in the landscape greenspace. Just real quick if you would, your thoughts on that and whether or not you think that is an amicable compromise. Jones: Again, I have to go back to what we talked about earlier in regards to the topography of my land and I do not believe that is going to be an amicable compromise. Again, with a 6' drop on the south east corner of my property as soon as you come in and impede onto that you are going to take out at least 20% of my parking and my display space by doing that. I just can't see where that is being fair to me in regards to what you are asking me to do. We are restricted on both our north and south bound borders and we do not have any place to go. It would not benefit us to go backwards other than in a building configuration to go behind us but for display space, which is critical, and with an ever increasing growth of Northwest Arkansas, whereas ten years ago I could keep 30 or 40 cars on the lot and be sufficient. Now it requires 130 cars on the lot to meet the demand of what is going on in this area. I am sorry but I just don't feel like that can be an amiable in regards for me to try to keep my display space and continue to grow in the area. Shackelford: A question for staff. If it is approved as far as the motion and second stands now, what is the applicant's right? Will he have an opportunity to voice an appeal for City Council to review a reduction of this right of way or is that something that would have to be recommended by us prior to Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 28 Warrick: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Jones: Warrick: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Hoover: Bunch: City Council hearing that? Within ten working days the applicant can appeal the approval with the conditions that you approve it with. One thing I don't know if it is clear, staff is only recommending that the improvement on the north end of the site, the development area, meet the setback requirements. We are not talking about improving the existing frontage. Aside from installation of a sidewalk we are not requiring that that display area, that those parking spaces be removed south of the project area for the redevelopment site. Now I'm confused because I thought that was the specific question that Commissioner Vaught asked earlier if this right of way ran the entire length of the property. The right of way dedication does and we feel it is important to be consistent with the Master Street Plan and obtain the right of way dedication but they are not proposing any development south of the entrance drive and we are not proposing that there be modifications made with the exception of some additional landscape islands within the parking area. We are not proposing that improvements be made south of that entrance drive. What affects this is the development area and the proposed location of the new display lot in front of the Mercedes show room. It is important that we are not asking that that front row of parking south of the entrance drive be modified in any way with the exception of the installation of a sidewalk. Thank you for the clarification. My comment to that is that you are asking for it in the future. At some point in time you are going to come back to me and say "I want that property We are asking for the dedication to be consistent with the Master Street Plan. We would require that for any development of the neighboring properties that he is talking about. Any future development of those properties will be requiring the same thing correct? Yes. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Just a question of clarification for the motioner and seconder. The Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 29 Estes: modification on the 25' to the 15' does your motion and the second reflect that it is only applying to the area north of the driveway? Condition of approval number two, Commissioner Bunch, would just change 25' to 15'. The required 15' of landscape as required in the Design Overlay District. Vaught: It is my understanding that it would affect the setback requirement of the whole property if future development is done south of the entrance. The dedication and the setback requirement are running the entire length. Warrick: The way that that condition is stated is along the site project limits right of way as depicted on the site plan. The site project limits is the north part of this property where development will take place. Vaught: That is fine. Hoover: We're all on the same page now? The right of way is the entire site. The greenspace is only on the new development. Is there any other discussion? Allen: If the motion is not acceptable to Mr. Jones, we went out and toured this site and I think he pleads a really good case but it is my inclination to vote against the motion and let him plead that case to the City Council and vote for this as it stands with the conditions of approval so I will vote against the motion. Hoover: Ok. Is there any other discussion? Shackelford: I will be voting for this motion. Obviously, I understand and hear the concerns of the applicant. I am always perplexed by these deals where we have existing businesses and particularly that part of the property is in the Overlay District, part of the property is not in the Overlay District. I have been in this town my entire life. This property I think is maintained very well. I think Mr. Jones is a good corporate neighbor of the city. I think that this is the best compromise that we can do at this point. I would very strongly encourage you to file an appeal with the Board of Adjustment on the signage issue. They hopefully will review our minutes and will take into consideration my comments in that area and a reminder that you do have the right to appeal to City Council who would have the final say in any adjustments on the right of way anyhow. You will still have that audience if you so choose. Hoover: Is there any other comment? Bunch: I will also be supporting this knowing that the applicant is not as satisfied Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 30 with the amended motion. However, in the interest of time, will avoid having to come back through the cycle depending on what subsequent action is taken. I think it is expedient and at this time it would actually save considerable expense and considerable misunderstandings and a lot of time to go ahead and support it at this time. I will be supporting the compromised motion as presented. Hoover: Thank you. Is there anymore discussion? Allen: Madam Chair, just to clarify. I do feel that Mr. Jones pleads a very good case, I just don't feel that I can go against what staff has recommended. Vaught: I would concur with Commissioner Shackelford on the signage issue. I do feel that there is a good case there and would hope that the Board of Adjustment would take that into account. It is one of those situations where you have an existing structure and an existing development and trying to incorporate our new standards into that. As for the right of way dedication, it is very rare on our level at least, that I can see us making that waiver. I think that is a City Council decision because it affects future resources the city controls and not us on that issue. If that is something you still want to pursue, under the compromise you just lose 5' instead of 15', if that is something you still want to pursue I would encourage you to go there. I know they recently did overturn us on one issue on right of way dedication so it can be done. I think that is a decision better made at the City Council level than at our level. That is why I introduced the compromise hoping that it would somehow work better for your development. Hoover: Is there any more discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-21.00 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Allen voting no. Thomas: The motion carries seven to one. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 31 VAC 03-10.00: Vacation (Brickey, pp 409) was submitted by Charles Brickey on behalf of Tamara Breland Brickey for property located at 1765 Applebury Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The request is to vacate a 10' utility easement along lots 23, 24 and 25 of the Jackson's First Addition. Hoover: Item number three on the agenda is VAC 03-10.00 at 1765 Applebury Road. Dawn? Warrick: This is a request to vacate a 10' utility easement along lots 23, 24 and 25 of Jackson's First Addition for property located at 1765 Applebury. Staff has reviewed this project request. No objections were voiced from adjoining property owners and no objections were voiced by utility representatives. We did have recommendations for conditions of approval through the Water and Sewer Maintenance Division and those are the conditions with which staff is recommending this Vacation. Those conditions, stated on page two of your staff report, include 1) Any relocation of existing utilities will be at the owner's expense. 2) The easement for the actual water main location shall be expanded to 10' on either side of the main. Only the portion of this 20' that falls on the subject property must be dedicated at this time. 3) The sewer main easement along the back property line must be expanded to 10' on either side of the main. Again, only the portion of the 20' that falls on the subject property will be dedicated at this time. With those conditions staff is recommending in favor of this utility easement vacation. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Brickey: Good evening Thank you guys for serving on this council. I have been in Fayetteville since 1958. My wife has been here for seven years. We handed out a map. If you notice, the first map that we have is a small map, this is a 1957 map that was accepted by the city and filed with the county in 1957. It does not show the present easement that is in question right now. In between in 1958 an easement was granted by Harry Jackson, who did this development. They got in there and as you know, Applebury is steep over there and has some rough terrain. He got over there and said this isn't going to work and they came up with a replat. If you notice, this replat is 1959, it is very careful here because the easement is 1958. Up here on our lot, up here in this corner it is not present at all in any shape, form, or fashion across our property. This is the document that was filed by the city with the county. They got in there, started building and low and behold, in 1962 they said we're having trouble with the sewer line because Jackson gave them an additional 5' easement along the north property bound and the east property bounds. It isn't sufficient so in 1962 he granted another easement that is along the north property bounds which is an additional 15' into the property, not to the utility line but 15' in from the property. In 1963, if you will notice on the papers that we handed you Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 32 all, our house was permitted. If you will look at the map carefully they show the easement on the north side. They show no easement where the house is. If you look carefully at the city maps the city maps show the easement directly under the house. I can't believe that a reasonable city inspector, that a reasonable builder would've built a house on a water and sewer easement. This is only a water and sewer easement, this is not a power easement, this is not a cable easement, this isn't a phone easement, this isn't a gas easement. This is only a water and sewer easement simple. We believe that the city gave up this easement when it permitted the house to be built there. Hoover: Are you done with your presentation? Brickey: Yes. Hoover: Thank you. Right now I want to open this up to public comment. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this VAC 03-10.00? Harpster: My name is Robert Harpster, I live at 1759 N. Applebury, which is lot 23 in the corner which abuts immediately to the east of the property in question that you are discussing tonight. I have a comment and then probably in the form of a question where I need clarification both financially, administratively and legally as to the second condition for approval which is to go to a 10' on either side easement as opposed to a 5' which currently exists. I have a 109' mixed aggregate concrete driveway that abuts right on that 5' line. If you now go to an additional 5' or 10' out it is going to take basically 5' theoretically off of my 9' wide driveway that has already been in existence for some time. I am very concerned and would object certainly to the 10' going out on those two pieces of property. If it is approved with that condition I would like to know what the legal and financial ramifications are if they have to go in and tear up my driveway for 109' because of a water or sewer easement that we are talking about. Where does the cost implication fall on me as an owner? Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address us? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Dawn, would you address the easement question? Warrick: He is asking for a legal interpretation. Hoover: Thank you. Mr. Williams? Williams- The way I understand it the only part of that proposed easement that would be affected by this action here would be the part on this man's lot and not anything on your lot. Even though we would like to have the Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 33 easement enlarged on both sides of the property line it is my understanding on the applicant's side of the line that we are talking about tonight so that the easement, if there is a 5' easement on your property line Sir it will stay that way unless you decide to do something else. If the city needed to come in and build a water line or a sewer line in there the city is required to put the property back in the same condition that it found it before the water line was put in. If the city actually had to come in and utilize the easement and destroy your driveway the city would be required to replace that driveway and put it back as you have it now. That is the requirements of the easement holder, the city, to do that. You still own the land, we only have the right to put the pipe underneath the land. After the pipe would be laid we would have to replace whatever was on top of that pipe. Hoover: Thank you. Mr. Williams, should item number two say that it is expanded to 10' on either side of the main? Williams: I don't think it really probably can say that because I think we only have one applicant in front of us and the other man's property is not in front of us so we can't be expanding the easement on his side of the line that I'm aware of. I don't think we can do that. Hoover: Thank you. That was confusing. Brickey: The easement that we are talking about, asking to be vacated, is only on our property. We weren't asking for it to be vacated on any other properties. There is no existing utilities in that easement. There are two separate easements there. There is an easement that goes across the east side and then there is a second easement on that east side that was given in 1958 apparently that goes across that that was never utilized. There is nothing there. We would be willing to replace that if the time comes, not if it comes, when the time comes because it will be coming. We have already had six blow outs on our line down there. What we wanted to do is add on to our house. We discovered this situation, that was not shown in the abstract, is not recognized by the abstract title insurance. It is like where did this come from. It is not on our surveys, the copy of the surveys that you got from us, it is not listed anywhere. Bunch: As a matter of clarification, a question for staff. Just where is the water main? None of our drawings that are in our packet show this and I think it would clarify things considerably since we're talking about two different easements and one with and one without pipes in them. Do we have anybody that knows where it is? Brickey: The water main that we are talking about runs along the east side of the property. The border between our two lots. The pipe actually is more on Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 34 our property than his. It was supposed to be laid right on the center of the property. It is actually about 5' over on the property. They took an additional 10' or 15' but it is going to be centered on that pipe the way I read it. That is going to bring the easement, it has been 23' from our house, that is going to bring it to about 17' what they are asking for. Shackelford: A clarification for staff. I'm sorry, I'm not real smart tonight. Your conditions of approval, I'm going to try to simplify this a little bit. Your conditions of approval are anticipating that we are going to grant the vacation of the utility easement that is in the house. In exchange for that, you are asking that we increase the easement that the actual water line is in by 10' is that correct or to 10'? Warrick: Staff's condition is to accommodate the existing water and sewer lines that cross this property along the east property boundary to ensure that there is adequate coverage in easements for the city to be able to maintain and work on those lines located in their current location. The Water and Sewer Maintenance Division has requested that easements be granted so that there is 10' on either side of the existing line. Shackelford: Does that 10' on either side of the existing line, does that entire space fall in this applicant's property. Warrick: I don't believe that 10' on either side for each of those lines would. The condition is drafted so that any of that easement area that is being requested that is contained within the subject property is granted. Shackelford: Ok, now given what our city attorney said that we can only discuss and deal with the property of the applicant, how do we need to word that condition of approval where it matches the 10' on either side of the line on which it is located on this property, how are we going to reconcile those two points? Williams: Actually, now that I know that the water main is not on the proper location and that it is actually located over on your land, I think the condition of approval is worded properly. We are only requiring dedication from this land owner so it is only the property on this side but it is made within the water main instead of the center of the easement, which is where I thought it would be because I thought that is where the water main would be. Now that I know that the water main is actually on your land I think this condition of approval is probably worded properly. It still does not affect this other gentleman's land but it does give us 10' on toward your house plus whatever. Basically almost the entire easement will be on his property because of the way the water main was put in. Shackelford: I appreciate the remedial engineering class. I was having a difficult time Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 35 following those two points. Warrick: Utility lines are not always located in the center of easements. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Is that clear to everybody? Are there any motions? MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of VAC 03-10.00 subject to the three stated conditions of approval. Allen: I second. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward VAC 03-10.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 36 ADM 03-22.00: Administrative (Sloan Petition for Tree Ordinance Variance, Legacy Pointe Subdivision) Mr. Charles W. Sloan, the Developer of Legacy Pointe Subdivision off Double Springs Road, has requested an alternate method of compensation to the City of Fayetteville's Tree Escrow Account for the removal of trees on the above mentioned property. Hoover: Moving on to item number four, ADM 03-18.00 Sloan Variance Petition for the Tree Ordinance. Carnagey: Mr. Charles Sloan, the developer of Legacy Pointe subdivision off of Double Springs Road has requested an alternate method of compensation to the City of Fayetteville for removal of trees on the above-mentioned property. The method proposed is for the developer to plant, establish and maintain all trees that are currently required for mitigation planting. There are really two issues here. One is whether or not the developer meets the criteria of Chapter 156.03, which is a petition for a variance from the requirements of Chapter 167. The applicant, the developer Mr. Sloan, and David Whitaker will address. The other issue is whether the method that the developer is proposing to plant, establish and maintain all of these trees, meets the requirements that are laid out for planting mitigation trees in the landscape manual. I will give you a little bit of background on this section. In accordance with the city's tree preservation protection ordinance, all residential subdivisions requesting tree removal below the minimum canopy requirement are required to contribute to the tree escrow account. During the Preliminary Plat process the developer reserved the right to request a tree variance before Final Plat approval. The preliminary subdivision plat for Legacy Pointe subdivision, including the tree preservation plan, has been approved by the Planning Commission. Currently the developer is required to compensate the city for the removal of trees at a replacement cost of $175 per tree for 238 1" caliper trees. A letter of credit in the amount of $41,650 has been deposited with the city by the developer. Currently the city is required to use this money for mitigation planting on or in the vicinity of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. The developer's proposal, the method of compensation, as stated before, is for the developer to replace the required mitigation trees, establish and maintain those trees. He is requesting to plant a minimum of 156 5" to 6" caliper trees, one tree per single family and townhouse lot will be planted. Each property owner will be given the choice of either planting one 5" to 6" caliper tree or multiple 2" caliper trees. These trees will be planted by a professional tree company approved by the city's Landscape Administrator, Legacy Pointe's Property Owner's Association shall be responsible to the City of Fayetteville to ensure that each tree is planted, established and maintained for no less than 25 years as per the covenants of the Legacy Pointe Property Owner's Association. The developer shall deposit an Irrevocable Letter of Credit with the city in the amount of $41,650 as guarantee for the establishment of these trees. Upon Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 37 completion of a three year establishment period the Landscape Administrator shall inspect the subdivision and determine whether 90% of the planted trees are healthy and have a reasonable chance of surviving. In the absence of such a condition the city shall request from the developer the replacement of any dead or unhealthy trees. Failure from the developer to take these remedial steps within 60 days of a written request will result in the city's right to use the guarantee funds to achieve compliance. The findings for this proposal are that the square footage of canopy cover for planting 156 4" to 6" caliper trees is greater than planting 238 1" caliper trees. Currently the city does not have the ability to plant, establish and maintain mitigation trees. We don't have the capacity currently. We have requested a proposal for subcontractors to plant mitigation trees but as of right now the city is not in a position to plant these trees. The combination of the Letter of Credit the developer has deposited with the city and the Protective Covenants on file with the county provides a high level of guarantee to the city that these trees will be planted, established and maintained. This guarantee provides assurance equal to the city contracting out of house the planting, establishing and maintenance of mitigation trees. My recommendation is for the approval of the variance, specifically regarding the method of planting these mitigation trees with the following conditions. 1) The trees shall be planted during the appropriate planting season (between October 15th and April 15`h). The developer shall describe the method he will use to track development of each individual lot that will ensure the required trees are planted. The developer shall provide a final date when all required trees will be planted by and the developer will describe the method used to ensure that maintenance, establishment, protection, watering, and initial structural pruning of trees are taken care of. I would also like included in that the name of an IESA Certified Arborist or the equivalent to be the contact name of that person to be provided to my office. That is all of the section of this petition that I have to address. I believe David has some additional comments. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Sloan: Hello, I'm Charlie Sloan, the developer. When we got into this process of doing Legacy Pointe we did have to remove some trees. We knew that there was a tree ordinance that was written. We got to searching the tree ordinance and there is a provision for commercial to be replanted but there is nothing for residential. If you take a tree down you pay. That is all there is. From our other subdivisions we have always required planting of trees and through the homeowner's association and grounds keeping committees if the tree were to be damaged or any kind of disease or anything like that we require that it is replaced. If you don't replace it the homeowner's association will replace it. We have got into that situation before. We immediately file a lien on their property after certain notice Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 38 and we start foreclosure proceedings if they don't pay to go through, it is just like collecting dues. We were already in the process, because it is part of our covenants, to plant trees before we found out that the situation on the amount of money that we have up here and what was happening with having to plant trees back with the city. First of all, I didn't think the city ought to be in the tree planting business for our subdivision. I dislike the fact that they are going to wait three years after our subdivision is established to come back in and plant trees. All we were asking was we require it anyway. I will put up the money, which I already have, and it has to stay there during our construction stage until we get enough houses in there to plant the trees. Then from that point I have a three year period additionally that the money has to set up until we meet the three year requirement of the tree ordinance. One of my questions was if you come in and plant a tree two years or three years from now in somebody's yard, after the three year period beyond that time, what can they do with that tree? They can cut it down if they want to. You can't go back on that home owner on anything. What we are saying is the trees we plant they can't cut it down. They have to maintain it. I understand it is very difficult to chase after a bunch of home owners so I am the guy you chase after. This whole thing could be handled easily with your tree administrator, one person, who I will meet with and go out there and I know I am obligated for a period of time with our subdivision. I feel like this is a good compromise. It makes it feasible, it is something that we don't have to go in there and add additional cost to. A lot is already going to have to absorb the cost of building putting those trees in. I think we will put a better tree in. We use, we don't go out there and allow the home owner's to put them in. We have someone that has to install, they have to buy from a certain place, they have to have that person come and install them, who will then guarantee the tree anyway for two or three years after they install it. They usually gives instructions and everything to the home owners of how to maintain the trees and everything. I feel like we have offered a good compromise. We need a way for subdivisions to replant trees. I think I'm the test case. We are the first subdivision on this tree ordinance. We were all shocked at the dollar amount because I am basically in a cow pastor. It is not flat land but it rolls but they have raised a lot of cattle on this land and there is not very many trees. The few that did have to come down there was just no way of going around it. There are a few trees and we spent a lot of money working utilities around and getting variances to put water and sewer on the same side of the street so we didn't have to take down a few trees. There needs to be some avenue that a developer is allowed to take down trees and then replant and we are trying to bring that compromise to you. That is where we are today. Thank you. We are fine with the conditions. Hoover: Thank you. I will ask if there is any public comment on this ADM 03- 18.00. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 39 Bunch: A question for the assistant city attorney. I know you sat in on the rewriting of the tree ordinance and who is better qualified to tell us about this? Are we on good legal grounds to accept this compromise? Whitaker: What I'm going to do is despite my initial billing this evening, you are going to know that my habit has always been that I am not going to tell you whether you should or should not grant a variance. I will remind you that that's a fact based determination that you folks are empowered to make. What I can say is that under the circumstances here where by staff's own memos and communications to you the city is at this time not able to provide the service contemplated by the revision committee when this language in 167.04(J)(4)(a) was adopted. That could be for you what would be the unique situation you would require to grant such a variance. Understanding that it is indeed a variance from, and that is why they are here, that all residential subdivisions would do it. This is not a complete surprise. We had anticipated that there would be sections of that rather hard thought document, that when the rubber hit the road there would be some adjustments made, this is one of the hardest ones we have hit so far. I think at some point soon we need to look at some modifications so that every residential subdivision that comes through in the interim before a mechanism for the city to plant the trees and maintain them. It doesn't have to come and request a variance but perhaps there could be an option of the two procedures, either pay into the tree fund, or as I'm not sure it's clear from what you've seen, but basically what the applicant and his counsel have done is drop down one subsection and adopted many of the provisions that apply currently for on site mitigation and off site forestation for non-residential subdivisions, simply moving them into the residential setting and then sort of as an overlay of extra protection, introducing voluntary measures such as strict covenants and pre-existing property owners association with very specific requirements for trees and protections for those trees on each lot. I think that together certainly then moves into the second prong of what 156.03(C)(5) talks about when it says "Provided that such variance shall not have the affect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the chapter." I think with the alternative that the applicant has provided you accompanied by Mr. Carnagey's conditions of approval, I think you certainly are in a position to satisfy that second prong and indeed there are those, myself included, who think that if this can work it would actually afford a better out come than the original language of the ordinance would have as far as canopy cover in that subdivision. Bunch: Thank you. One other question, either for staff or the applicant. On the sixty days to come into compliance, is that 60 days to file an action to be taken since obviously there could be more than 60 days before a tree could be planted, since another part of the presentation by the Landscape Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 40 Administrator gave specific planting dates. Carnagey: That would be sixty days for a response. Bunch: I just wanted to clarify that, thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Estes: I have a question. The Letter of Credit that is issued by Arvest and the requirement by the P.O.A. that it will ensure that each tree is planted, established and maintained for no less than 25 years. How will this be enforced? Is that Letter of Credit going to sit there for 25 years? Sloan: MOTION: I believe the intent of the ordinance, let's say I start this subdivision this afternoon and start putting houses in there, let's say it takes a year to get the houses in there before we get the houses established, then we will plant trees. Those trees, according to what the city was going to do is they were going to come in and plant trees and maintain them for three years. Now what my proposal intends to be is I will leave the Letter of Credit up until that three year time frame is left, all I have to do with the ordinance is the trees have to live three years according to your ordinance, not my ordinance. My ordinance they have to be maintained for 25 years to go along with the covenants. I am only leaving the Letter of Credit up for three years. If he comes along and looks good, from that date on we document it and I have three years that I have to leave the money up and he will come back at that three year period and check to make sure they are healthy. Once 90% of the subdivision is done then my money is released at that point. Technically that might be a four, five, or six year period that I have the money up. Granted, I would love to take the money off the table at the time the tree is planted but that doesn't meet the spirit of the ordinance. The ordinance was to try to maintain some kind of, so the city would be able to enforce that to make sure we keep a tree there for a three year period. We are just trying to take the city out of being the ones to plant the trees, come by and water trees for the next three years. I think that is undue work on the city that we can take care of has home owners out there and as developers. Shackelford: Madam Chair, after reviewing this I really like this proposal. One of the areas of the tree preservation act that I had the most concern with was in regards to the residential housing development. I like this idea. I think developers and home owners are always going to have a greater vested interest and reservation for their property than the city will. Based on that, and the fact that our own city staff is telling us that we cannot provide this service, I think that this variance meets the intent and purpose of the Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 41 ordinance as it has been written. Based on that and findings of fact by our city staff and written conditions of approval, I will make a motion that we approve this ADM 03-22.00. Bunch: Not only does this meet but it far exceeds what our city requirements are and I will happily second it and think that it is wonderful that the private development community is showing that there is value in this and working to not only meet our city standards, but to exceed them. Hoover: Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any more discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ADM 03-22.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Whitaker: If you would like, and I think it is important based on this process, which has actually gone on for more than a year now, with your consent we would like to go ahead and work with the Planning staff on proposed language with the jest that should they want to bring in protective covenants and property owner's associations with the kind of assurance that Mr. Sloan's project did, that would be an option as well. It would still allow the tree fund to exist for those who didn't feel like they wanted to be bothered with that level of commitment. Carnagey: I think it is important that what David is saying is explained. City staff, personnel may not have the capacity to plant mitigation trees but we should still allow the ability for applicants to pay into the tree fund and the city can actually contract that work out. Like I said in my report, we have an RFP submitted right now for landscape contractors to go in and plant some of these mitigation trees that we are requiring developments to plant. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Meeting adjourned: 7:26 p.m.