Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 24, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN PPL 06-2109: ( MOUNTAIN RANCH II, 479, 480, Approved 518, 519) Page 4 PPL 06-2151: (DRIVER S/D, 295) Approved Page 4 CUP 06-2128: (SOUTH HILL CHURCH OF Tabled CHRIST, 561) Page 5 VAC 06-2161: (BLOCK 16 COLLEGE ADDITION, Tabled 405) Page 6 RZN 06-2172: (DUNNERSTOCK, 400) Forward Page 13 ADM 06-2164: (SYCAMORE CENTER, 407) Denied Page 22 ADM 06-1959: (CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE Amended ORDINANCE) Page 37 ADM 06-1959: (CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE Forward ORDINANCE) Page 39 Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Christine Myres Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo STAFFPRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Tim Conklin Leif Olson CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Hilary Harris Andy Lack STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 3 Anthes: Good evening. Welcome to the Monday July 24th, 2006 meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I'd like to remind everyone to turn off your pagers and cell phones. Can we have a roll call, please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Ostner, Bryant, Myres, Graves, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 4 PPL 06-2109: Preliminary Plat ( MOUNTAIN RANCH II, 479, 480, 518, 519): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at S OF PERSIMMON ST., W OF I-540 AND E OF PHASE I. The property is zoned with MULTIPLE ZONING DISTRICTS and contains approximately 94.52 acres. The request is for residential subdivision with 30 single family lots, 3 multi -family lots and 2 commercial lots. PPL 06-2151: Preliminary Plat (DRIVER S/D, 295): Submitted by FREELAND, KAUFMANN & FREEDEN for property located at THE EAST END OF TOWNSHIP. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE AND PARTIALLY IN THE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 25.69 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 6 single family lots on 3.38 acres within, 1 lot of 22.30 acres outside of the City of Fayetteville, and a detention lot. Anthes: Our consent agenda this evening has two items: a Preliminary Plat 06- 2109 for Mountain Ranch II, and Preliminary Plat 06-2151 for Driver. Would any member of the public or any commissioner like to remove one of theses items from consent? Seeing none, I'll entertain motions to approve the consent agenda. Ostner: So moved. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner. And a second ... Clark: Sure. Anthes: ... by Commissioner Clark. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 06-2109 and PPL 06-2151 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 5 CUP 06-2128: (SOUTH HILL CHURCH OF CHRIST, 561): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 1146 S. ELLIS AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY -24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is to for a church (Use Unit 4) in the RMF -24 Zoning District. Anthes: Our third and fourth items tonight have been requested to be tabled; however, we will hear public comment if anyone would like to speak to those items. The first item is Old Business. It's Conditional Use Permit 06-2128 for South Hill Church of Christ. Is anyone here to speak on behalf of that item? Seeing none, I'll entertain motions to table. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I move that we table Conditional Use Permit 06-2128. Is it indefinitely, Jeremy? Pate: Yes. Anthes: Yes. Graves: Indefinitely. Clark: And I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to table by Commissioner Graves, a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table CUP 06-2128 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 6 VAC 06-2161: (BLOCK 16 COLLEGE ADDITION, 405): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 20' ALLEY RUNNING N. FROM MOUNT COMFORT/NORTH STREET UP TO HAZEL. The property is zoned RMF - 24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.12 acres. The request is to vacate the length of a 20' wide N/S alley from Mount Comfort/North Street to Hazel. Anthes: Our first item in New Business is Vacation Request 06-2161 for Block 16 College Addition. Again, this has been requested to be tabled. Would anyone like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll entertain motions to table. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I move we table Vacation 06-2161 indefinitely. Graves: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table VAC 06-2161 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 7 RZN 06-2171: Rezoning (DUNNERSTOCK, 400): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located west of Rupple Road, east of Meadowlands Subdivision. The property is zoned RSF-1, Res. Single Family - 1 unit/acre, R -A, Res. Agricultural, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 20 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-7 (6.9 acres), RMF -12 (8.4 acres), and C-1 (4.7 acres.) Anthes: Our fifth item tonight is Rezoning request 06-2172 for Dunnerstock. May we have the staff report, please? Pate: I'll be doing that. Suzanne is not with us tonight. This is a property containing approximately 20 acres. The Planning Commission saw this a few months ago as a rezoning request from its current zoning, which has three existing zoning districts, that is, R -A, Residential Agricultural, 2.5 acres; RSF-1, which is Residential Single Family, 1 unit per acre on 16.77 acres; and C-2, which is our Thoroughfare Commercial zoning designation, on approximately one-half an acre. These properties or portions of them were in the City already two years ago when we did the island annexation. The 16.5 acres, RSF-1, were brought into the City along Rupple Road. This request formerly was in April of this year. It was formerly for RSF-4. Staff did recommend approval of that zoning request; however, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 4 on this item and were split. Because of that split vote ... and a rezoning requires five affirmative votes to go forward to the City Council ... it did die for lack of majority vote. The applicant chose not to proceed with an appeal of that decision, and instead, has submitted this subject rezoning request. And to take you back to the discussion that night, and you have the minutes in your packet, the Planning Commission, at least the four of those who voted in favor, and several others, also, against this item, discussed items ... discussed issues such as density and the desire to have more density on this property. Also discussed was the potential for commercial property here, especially across from the Wellspring planned zoning district. In anticipation of those comments the applicant submitted a Master Development Plan to staff. The staff reviewed those plans, and finding that they were not complete to meet our Master Development Plan criteria, we met with the applicant on several occasions. I think the Catch-22 on this particular item is that there are portions of the property the applicant at this time doesn't have any intent in developing, although they're certainly not opposed to a commercial zoning or a multi-family/higher density zoning in this location. Therefore, it was very hard for them to commit and for staff to commit to a recommendation to the Planning Commission on a Master Development Plan when that concept really had not been fully evaluated. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 8 Because of that, this applicant has come forward with three different zoning districts. This is a proposal to rezone portions of the property, about 7 acres, to RSF-7, which is single family, 7 unit per acre density. It does allow for the smaller lots, 6,000 square feet, I believe; the RMF -12 zoning district on about 8.5 acres, which does allow for multi -family zoning up to 12 units per acre; and a C-1 zoning designation on approximately 4.5 acres. You can see the ... probably the best map to look at this at is on Page 30 and 32 in your staff report and those zoning designations and how those are surrounded by other development. To the east, of course, across Rupple Road is the R-PZD for Wellspring. To the south of this property is property zoned C-1, C-2, and R -O. Most of those are either not fully developed, not developed at all, or an older development pattern. And then, of course, to the west is a portion of RT - 12, which has developed into a single-family, small lot type of development pattern. The applicant has also submitted quite an extensive Bill of Assurance on Page ... starting on Page 17 of 32. Most of these assurances that have been offered by the applicant ... there are 10 of them ... deal with the compatibility of development to Wellspring, which was part of the discussion on that night of April when the Planning Commission last considered this. It speaks to public access through the property and having connectivity to the west, which is a vacant tract. It also speaks to how buildings should be arranged and have the Planning Commission review all these plats for architectural design standards, tree placement and plantings. Item Number 8 discusses types of material, colors and arrangement of windows, doors, things of that ... really a lot of architectural design that we typically don't see on residential projects specifically. Of course, the commercial design standards would apply to any commercial development. And lastly, it also discusses compatibility with Wellspring community to the east, and including architectural design and building arrangement, which, of course, you all are aware that that is more urban style of development with parking in the rear, primarily. So those are the types of things that we would present to the Planning Commission when and if a development plan would come to this body. With that Bill of Assurance as offered by the applicant, staff is recommending approval of these rezoning requests and recommend that you forward it to the Full Planning Commission, finding that it is compatible with, at the time this was reviewed, our General Plan 2020. I think it also ... we've come forward with several components of our General Plan ... or City Plan 2025 in a mixture of uses in complete and connected, specifically with the Bill of Assurance that talks about connectivity to those properties that can be connected and a mixture of uses in the same area. So with that, staff is recommending approval. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 9 Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Would any member of the public like to speak to this rezoning request for Dunnerstock? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section and ask the applicant if they would like to make a presentation. Good evening. Jorgensen: Yes, my name is Dave Jorgensen, and as Jeremy said, we are submitting this three-part rezoning request. As you probably remember, we had a RSF-4 request originally and then we had some dissension within the ranks of the Planning Commission. Basically, it was kind of a split deal. And so we've come back with this revised plan, hoping to satisfy those concerns and desires to have more of a diversity on the rezoning request. As you realize, we had the RSF-4, which was going to allow for single family residential and we thought that would be kind of the normal thing to ... normally request. In this request right here we have the combination of the RSF-7, the RMF -12, and the C-1, which allows for kind of a mixed use type of community here, and personally, I think it's a real good idea. It gives transition as you go from north to south and it also, with the Bill of Assurance, assures that we can get some compatibility with the project to the east across Rupple Road. And as Jeremy also mentioned, the reason we didn't follow through on the Master Development Plan was this problem about the developer not necessarily being the developer of the other two parcels, namely the RMF -12 and the C-1. But the good news is that you have a chance to review each and every one of these things as it comes back through the process, and the next step will be the RSF-7. I know for a fact that's coming back pretty quick and I suspect the other two will come ... follow behind it, so ... I'll be glad to answer questions. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jorgensen. Commissioners? I have one question, Mr. Pate. On the Bill of Assurance, Item Number 3 states, "Parcel #2 shall have the buildings arranged to avoid a grid layout or," quote, "'row,"' unquote, "houses. Buildings shall be staggered to help avoid this grid layout." Can you clarify that intent? Jorgensen: Now, what does that mean? What we want to do there is ... is bring something to the Planning Commission that's got some character rather than a row of condos or a row of townhouses and provide some ... something that will be more appealing to than just your basic, and I call it the grid layout, and that's all I'm trying to say right there. And I know this leaves it open for the Planning Commission to assist in the design process, but I know of a couple of projects like that that aren't the most desirable to have right there, and that's the purpose of this. Anthes: Okay. I guess we just need to get on the books what that really means, because a row house typology is something that we have happening across Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 10 the street at Rupple Row and was received favorably by this Commission and so ... but you're talking more about identical units in a row; is that it? Jorgensen: Yeah, right. Pate: Yes. Jorgensen: Maybe the terminology wasn't exactly right right there, but you're correct, though. The Rupple Row project is really neat down there, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. But here again, it gives the chance ... it gives the Planning Commission a chance to look at it, and the Planning Staff,. And I sense that the Planning Staff, when something is rezoned, well, then, you know, that's a ticket to jam -pack everything you possibly can in there, and I'm not saying that we're not going to attempt this for the developer, but we do want it to be compatible with the project across the street. And I'm not implying that it ... you know, it can't be the row house look, but it needs to be appealing. Anthes: Does staff feel comfortable that you have enough direction on that? ? (Inaudible) Pate: Well, I think ultimately, if you look at Number 10, it also states that it "shall be compatible with the Wellspring Community to the east" and including "architectural design and building arrangement." So I think we would do everything possible to work with the applicant at the time of development to satisfy that criteria and all the other nine criteria that the applicant specifically has offered. When this was first offered I know that we had spoken about that particular one because we had some questions about it, too, but as you know, a Bill of Assurance is offered by an applicant and we try not to mess with that too much. And so while we have some questions about that, I think ... as for the record, I think it is referring to identically designed apartment complex style structures that are either facing a street or in a grid. And so it would hopefully provide some sort of not ... something that's not identical, I guess. It's a little hard to get ... grasp that Number 3 ,to be honest, because everyone has their own idea about what that means. Jorgensen: It definitely leaves it open for personal preference and possibly some confusion by the Planning Commission, and all I'm trying to do here is to let the staff know and the Planning Commission know that it's not the end of the world when we rezone this property. We want to be able to get the Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 11 Planning Staff's thoughts and recommendations as we go through each and every one of these projects. Anthes: I have a question of the City Attorney. Mr. Williams, as far as clarification, are our comments here and in the minutes enough, or since the Bill of Assurance goes with the rezoning request and with the land, would it be helpful for the applicant to clarify that statement in the Bill of Assurance? Williams: Basically, a Bill of Assurance is freely offered by a developer and you get what is offered. And if it's not what you all want and it's something that is so bad that the rezoning is not acceptable to you, then you can vote against the rezoning, but I don't think we need to be ... you know, giving advice to the applicant about "This is not a good Bill of Assurance and, therefore, do it like this or that." I don't think that's really within our power. Anthes: I think I understand what the intent was, and that's what I was trying to get at. Commissioner Graves. Graves: I think that the record has been made as to what's intended by that particular item and I'm in conformity with the City Attorney's advice that we shouldn't get into the business of trying to parse language on something that's been offered by the applicant to the City. I'm going to move that we forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval on Rezoning 06-2172 for all the reasons that have been stated by staff. Anthes: I have a motion. Do I hear a second? Trumbo: Second. Anthes: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Graves, a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: I have a question for staff. There is a new general plan interim map. How does this fit with that interim document? Pate: In the actual map it's the exact same in this area. We reviewed this under the general guidance of the General Plan 2020, because this was submitted Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 12 approximately, 50, 60 days ago, which is well before this body reviewed that plan. So those are still operating under the direction of the General Plan 2020. As I mentioned, though, because we do have a resolution passed by the City Council, I did want to mention that we felt that it was still compatible with that plan as well. As far as a future land use designation and guide in this area, it would still comport to that. Ostner: Well, I would ... I'm still concerned ... and I appreciate the applicant's efforts, I really do. This is a mixture of uses; however, they're ... they're still homogeneous zones that are delineated. And I appreciate the Bill of Assurance. I'm not going to try to mess with it. It does help me understand what you all are ... have in mind. I am probably going to vote against this. I ... by my figures, the C-1 comes to about, maybe, five acres, or 4.8 -something. It's situated to face ... is that Rupple? Clark: Uh-huh. Ostner: But most of this is housing, and I still think that this... that this intersection is prime for more commercial, and I'm not pushing for a giant strip commercial development, but that's ... that's how I see it. Even though this is much more amenable, I'm probably going to vote no, so ... Jorgensen: Jeremy, does the Planning Commission have a drawing of what we were going to do, by any chance? I can't recall if... Pate: I believe so, yes. Jorgensen: That shows the correct Ostner: Could you hold it up so we can ... Anthes: We have this one. Jorgensen: Right. Okay. If you can refer to that drawing, the reason we broke it up this way, is you can see the property to the north is Bellwood Subdivision, Phase I, and what we're trying to do is transition into something commercial, something multi -family, and the reason for the layout is exactly that. To the north is the single-family project and then to the east of this proposed RSF-7 is the C-1, and we just felt like that would be kind of the transition point right there, and then to the south was the multifamily, RMF -12, and that's the reason for the layout as it happened that way. One other reason we didn't go more commercial is that it was pointed out to us that the Wellspring has a fair amount of ... not Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 13 necessarily commercial right directly across the street right there, but it's potentially a fair amount of commercial, right? Pate: Yes. There's approximately, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly ... you're right ... 400,000 square feet of commercial, so that's ... Jorgensen: A pretty good amount. And so there was ... that's the reason for our ... how it broke down this way. But you're right, the C-1 is 4.67 ... yeah, 4.67 acres, so it's not entirely commercial, that's for sure. Ostner: Okay. The ... I understand those transition issues, but if the parcel number 1 that you're proposing RSF-7, or the RMF -12 and the southern parcel, number 2, were also commercial with this eastern tract I would vote for this. I can see that transition. But I see this as extending a whole bunch of transition to get residential and having a little bit of commercial left over. And I understand there is a bunch of commercial in Wellspring. That is going to be a different kind of commercial. It's ... it's slip in, slip into a building. The building will be built, there will be residential up above, and you slide in and you finish out. It's ... it's not come in, build your building, have your commercial. So it's a different type of commercial. So I think there is a difference between the Wellspring commercial and your average commercial. Anthes: Is there further discussion? I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Graves, a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2172 carries with a vote of 6-1-0. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 14 ADM 06-2164: Administrative Item (SYCAMORE CENTER, 407): Submitted by MILLER BOSKUS LACK ARCHITECTS for the property located at 1680 N. COLLEGE AVENUE. The request is for a waiver of landscaping requirements to accommodate additional parking. Anthes: Our sixth item tonight is Administrative Item 06-2164 for Sycamore Center. May we the staff report, please? Fulcher: This is for the shopping center located at the southeast corner of College Avenue and Sycamore Street. Up until the late `90s it was home to the Royal Dry Cleaners within just a single building on that site. Doing some research into this property in the redevelopment of the property, it was around 1999 that the owner at that time, which is still the current owner, began discussions with City staff regarding development of the site. There's quite a few various site plans within the old files that we have. They tried to work with the existing building and add a new building to it, various amounts of parking, retail space. Ultimately, what was constructed is what is there today, which is approximately 11,300 square feet of retail and 36 parking spaces. Based on the use and the square footage of the building, between 32 and 58 parking spaces are allowed, so 36 is within that allowance. The applicants tonight are requesting a reduction in the green space along Sycamore Street and College Avenue in hopes or ... and actually you can see in the designs that they have provided to the Planning Commission tonight to provide 10 more parking spaces by removing some of that green space from 15 feet down to 6 feet on both streets. That's a reduction in 9 feet on both sides. That will provide them 10 more parking spaces. Obviously, based on the correspondence within our staff report, the owner and many of the tenants within the shopping center feel that that would help them to have that additional parking added to the site. Looking at the site in relation to others on College, I think this site is a good example of why the City Council adopted a landscape ordinance and to provide for green space along a major arterial through the City of Fayetteville. And really to remove that green space that was provided during the redevelopment of this site only a few years ago, it really would be contrary to the purpose of the landscape ordinance. It really kind of boils down to designing the site in the first place, understanding that the rules have not changed since then. This is the same amount of green space, same parking requirements, so those were met at the time and was based on the design of the site at that time, and also it boils down to the uses of the individual retail spaces. Obviously, if you have a restaurant or retail, you've got different parking demands placed on this development, and so really this development was constructed under current ordinances and it just hasn't been able to support the types of uses provided in that. Based on that, staff is unable to Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 15 support this variance request of 9 feet of landscape reduction on both street frontages. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this item? This is Administrative Item 06-2164 for Sycamore Center. Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Good evening. Hadfield: My name is Philip Hadfield. I'm with Miller Boskus Lack Architects. I'm representing the owner of Sycamore Center and he is actually here and would like to make a statement after I'm finished. The drawing that I placed up in front is the existing layout. There are some small changes I made ... need to mention ... just so that it's clear. The civil plan that you were handed shows the old parking layout before the ... Anthes: Jesse, you could put it on the pole, maybe. (Mr. Fulcher positions drawing.) Hadfield: From the civil landscape plan that was handed to you, the center island was actually made a little larger and a space was added. After review with the City, we found out that the centerline of Sycamore was actually in a different place, which allowed us a little bit more room. So the compact spaces that faced Sycamore were actually changed to full-size spaces and a compact space was added in the island. There is also the sidewalk. Some site adjustments were made and you can see that in the aerial photo. It's at a slightly different angle. We could correct that or work with it if this is approved. The reason that we're asking for these additional spaces, the tenants in Sycamore Center are having trouble with people coming to the Center and not having a space to park. I did a calculation on the spaces that are there and the actual lease space that's currently occupied. The Center has actually never fully been occupied, parking one of the problems according to the lease letter that is in your packet as well. With what's currently leased, the square footage worked out to where we would actually need 39 spaces, if you didn't count what was not leased currently, and I mainly point that out to show that even without it fully occupied it still has parking problems. So we're not here to try to get fully leased, we're just pointing out that there's a problem even before that may occur, and if the building had been less in square footage we may still have the same problem that we're running into right now ... and I have some numbers if anybody actually needs to see that, and that was actually calculating Quizno's, the restaurant, at the different square footage calculation than just retail. If Quizno's was counted as retail, we would only actually need 37 spaces, which would only be one additional to what is currently there. The tenants have been complaining about the space ... Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 16 you've gotten some letters in your packet about that ... and it was mentioned that one of the tenants had given notice that they would be leaving if this didn't pass. On Friday the owner got another notice from the nail salon place that they would be moving out as well if the parking wasn't fixed. So it is a problem. We don't want a vacant building. You know, we don't want everybody moving to the mall or somewhere else. We would like to keep people closer to the center of Fayetteville. As far as a note that I saw in the staff comments, as far as looking for another solution ... Let me find what was stated there. I believe it was on the fifth page of the staff report. The last line said "and recommends that the applicant pursue other measures to remedy the situation." The owner has actually... this is the last straw, pretty much. The owner has talked to the storage place that is directly behind and wraps the non -street side of this facility. The owner didn't want to lease any space and also didn't want to sell any space to actually put parking in, so ... he also looked at the Radio Shack that's across Sycamore. They are short on spaces as it is, so they didn't want to give up any spaces. There is a vacant lot behind Radio Shack. He spoke with the owner of that property. They didn't want to sell a piece of their property for leasing, either. Actually, he also, I believe, spoke with Acropolis, you know, the next ... working your way up the street, that's the next closest parking lot, other than Sonic ... asked if maybe some of the employees could park there and they said they weren't interested, either. So we are coming to you, you know, because we've tried pretty much everything else that we can think of. Let's see. Also on the spaces, we didn't try to actually take advantage of the minimal spaces allowed. We actually were planning the project and then went to speak with Dawn Warrick at the time, who is in the staff, and she worked with us, and we were mainly thinking we would be able to keep what was currently there with the original Royal Dry Cleaner, which was mentioned. And I have pictures if you want to see what the conditions were there. It was the 5 -foot strip along College and it was basically concrete on the Sycamore side. There was no landscaping whatsoever. And we originally thought we would be working with the 5 -foot strip and maybe add something on Sycamore, and so we started working on the plan, and then when we got to talk to Dawn, we realized that we maybe needed to shrink the building or work on the spaces, and she had mentioned that there was a way to do the building that we were looking at doing by getting the reduction, so we decided to proceed with that. It wasn't from ... it wasn't thought of from the beginning is the point on that. Let's see. As far as suggestions on maybe possibly accepting this, we have proposed possibly adding a berm, adding additional landscaping. The owner has even suggested possibly even taking the sidewalk that's currently there and moving it so that we can actually still have 15 feet of bushes and trees, etcetera, and then have the grass between the sidewalk and the street itself. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 17 The ... Let's see. I know that may not meet ordinance, but that is something that we're able to do if you wish. Also, maybe adding some sort of landscape wall or anything else that you may see as possible. We would also add more trees, more bushes, anything that might make it work. And I think with that, that's pretty much all I have unless you have some questions. Rick Thomas is the owner and he would like to say something as well. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Thomas: Good evening. My name is Rick Thomas and I'm the owner of the Center. Just to give you a little brief history, I purchased the property about 20 years ago. It was an old commercial building that Phil had mentioned. It was probably about 60 years old when I bought it, because I grew up near there when I was a kid. In the early `50s it was there and it was not a pride of ownership, but I owned it. I leased it five years ... for the first five years to a blood plasma company and they were in there, and then about 15 years ago I leased it to Royal Cleaners. And about seven years ago I approached Royal Cleaners and I told them that I would like to beautify the corner, upgrade it, and build a new building, and that I would lease them space in the new building behind, which they are very, very interested in. So I drew up a lease on the new building; I tore up the lease on the old building. I got with Phil and we designed a Center that I thought would work. Like Phil said, he went to the City, came back, said, "Guess what, Rick. You've got 40 feet of landscaping on both streets, your parking is going to be 40 feet to off the street." So I said, "Well, we're ... we've already gone this far. Let's do it and we'll make it work." Unfortunately, it hasn't worked, if you've read the letters from the tenants there. There's a complete parking nightmare out there. I get calls from the tenants all the time saying, "What are you going to do about our parking problem?" And as Phil mentioned, I've done everything. I've talked to all the neighboring property owners about buying, leasing. There's no street parking, obviously. Tenants have said their customers are driving around and around. They can't find parking places and they leave. There's also a lot of fender -benders there because people are double parking and people are backing into each other. There's a little reprieve during the summertime because the students aren't around, but next month the students come back and it's going to be even worse. The ... I did lease one unit, the first time in over a year, last month, and like Phil said, I have two tenants moving out next month because of the parking problem, so it's an ongoing problem. It's never been more than 70 percent leased. It's a money ... it's a money -loser and it's never been profitable, but my concern is with the tenants. They're all good tenants. They're losing money; they're losing customers; they want me to do something about it. I've Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 18 been trying for five years to solve the problem and that's why I'm here. We've got 40 feet of landscaping between the street and the parking. We're just asking for 9 feet. As Phil said, we'll beautify that ... the remaining 31 feet of green space, add trees, hedges, bushes, berm, landscape berms. And the other solution is that ... Phil mentioned that I could move the sidewalk over and still maintain the 15 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and the parking, and that would still leave 10 feet of grass between the street and the parking ... the street and the sidewalk. I was driving down College the other day and I noticed at 3155 North College there was a new large commercial development that was being developed. They had just poured the sidewalk and the curbs for the ...for the parking lot and I noticed there was only 5 feet of landscaping that was going to be put in between the sidewalk and the parking, and there was only 6 feet of landscaping green space between the sidewalk and the street. That was at 3155 North College. I took some pictures. So I assume there is some variation from the plan occasionally. That development only had a 17 -foot parking setback. We have 40 feet and if we are able to get the extra 9 feet we'll have 31 feet, which is almost twice what this new development is putting in right now. So, like I said, we've explored all the options. I wouldn't be here if this wasn't the last option I had. I'd like to just respond to something that the staff said, that I overbuilt the property. I actually have an acre there and an 11,300 square foot building on an acre is only 20 percent building coverage, which is not a lot for a retail center. I have actually as much landscaping as I do parking there, and I guess that's where the problem lies. Another statement I guess I'd like to respond to is that in the staff report it said, "Granting a 9 -foot variance would confer special privileges on this applicant that are denied to surrounding properties required to provide 15 feet of landscaping." Well, I'm sure if you've seen mine, you'll see that I have twice as much landscaping as the surrounding properties. So I hope that we can resolve this so everyone will benefit: the City, my tenants, myself. Like I said, I will the move the sidewalk and create the 15 -foot landscape buffer and still provide 15 ... or 10 feet of grass between the sidewalk and the street. So please consider this request and thanks for your consideration. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Commissioners? I have a question for staff. Are you aware of the project at 3155 North College that Mr. Thomas referenced? Pate: I'm not. The only project that I can think of right now on College is the World Gym that's under construction. Thomas: That's it. I have pictures of it. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 19 Pate: Okay. The ordinances... the landscape ordinances currently state that, when you do a new project, you're doing a hundred -percent expansion or a brand-new project on the site, a hundred percent of your site has to be in compliance with our code. If you have an existing nonconformity and you're expanding a project, that percentage of expansion then must be brought into compliance. So the percentage of expansion to a building must equal the percent of improvement to an existing parking lot, so that's probably a situation ... I don't know all the details offhand, but it's probably a situation where they're adding landscaping, adding a sidewalk, and doing certain things within the interior or adjacent to the property lines, because World Gym is not a hundred -percent new building. It's a ... I think it's just a small expansion to their existing footprint, so ... if that helps. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Ostner: I have a question for staff. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Ostner: Surely this is not the first shopkeeper, landowner, who has had parking problems. How do some of the downtown businesses or properties deal with these problems when there simply is no area in front of them that's either landscaped or asphalt? Pate: As you know, in the downtown specifically there are always questions about that, because a lot of the properties are 100 -percent building and there is no parking. A lot of those have shared parking agreements between property owners. Valet parking is something that's becoming more and more common in the downtown area, especially for restaurant type of uses. The structured parking option that is being utilized in a number of occasions ... number of circumstances now, a lot of those provide a leased parking arrangement. The E.J. Ball Building, for instance, there is no parking on that lot whatsoever. All the parking surrounding it is actually municipally owned, and so they tease spaces back from the City on a contract basis. So that's how a lot of downtown vendors and property owners work to get parking. I know that in other areas of the City as well there are shared parking agreements between shopping centers and restaurants. Obviously the restaurant business, I think, is one of the ... in my opinion is one of the biggest problems here is because it has a very high peak hour, high turnover rate of users, and so there's a large volume of users at the same time, which obviously makes it difficult for those property owners/tenants to have other people shopping Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 20 at the same place at lunchtime or dinnertime. So shared parking agreements are the most common. Ostner: Thank you. And I have a question for the applicant, the owner. I'm wondering where the employees currently park. Thomas: Anywhere they can. (speaking from the audience). Ostner: If you could come to the microphone, for the record, please? Thomas: Well, anywhere they can. Unfortunately, sometimes they park in other people's parking lots and that is a problem because then they get notices put on their car. Sometimes they're ... they might park up at Evelyn Hills and walk down, I'm not sure, but I know a lot of them ... they shouldn't, but they go over to Radio Shack and park, and I asked the gentleman that owns the Radio Shack if he would sell the building and I would buy it and keep them there and work out a way that we could share some parking there and he wasn't interested, so ... like I said, they park wherever they can. And it's the customers that we're really concerned with, because when they come in, if they can't find a parking place, they leave, and so then everyone suffers. Ostner: Thank you. That's kind of what I was wondering, if there are spaces available and an employee shows up and he parks in front of his business or restaurant. Thomas: No, they don't park in front of the business. As a matter of fact, I had the Designer Discount call me about a week ago and state that some employees from Royal Cleaners parked in front of his front door. So I had to call Royal Cleaners and ... so I kind of have to police it every day, but typically they will not park in front of the stores. They try and find other parking in the Center, but not right in front of the stores. Ostner: Thank you. Thomas: Sure. Thanks. Ostner: The only other comment I have is that this landscape rule that we're being asked to waive, on Sixth Street a great deal of new projects have started and some of them are finished out ... near Lowe's and Wal-Mart, and I do think it's important and shocking, actually, the difference that this green space makes. There are two banks, there's a sort of shopping area just next to Lowe's, between Lowe's and Wal-Mart, and as I drive by I often wonder, "What is all that grass doing between here and that building?" Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 21 and you know what, it makes a big difference, I think. I don't know what to do to solve your problems, but from being asked to waive this rule, I think there is good standing to deny your request and keep the rule for my ... my opinion. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Jeremy, maybe you know the answer to this. On Page 3 of 20 it states that when this was built in 2001 under the current regulation the applicant actually requested a 22 -percent parking reduction and could have, in fact, built many more parking places had they not done ... did they go for a bigger building and less parking, or ... Pate: They didn't have to request through the Planning Commission that 22 - percent reduction. You're allowed ... an applicant or a developer is allowed 30 percent plus or minus the permitted number. Clark: But that was their choice, right? Pate: That was their choice, to size the building as it is and provide more building space,. leaseable space, as opposed to parking. That's not something we dictate, how large your structure has to be. Clark: Okay. It seems like 20/20 ... you know, hindsight is always 20/20, but I agree with Alan, that green space makes a big difference. In fact, Mr. Thomas, I think this is an oasis on College Avenue with the green space that is there. And, unfortunately, it's a problem when a restaurant moves in, although it's a very nice restaurant and they seem to do a lot of business. I will be voting to follow staff's recommendation for denial simply because I think this is exactly what we're looking for, and as things move in, I would hope that we put more green space on College as opposed to more concrete. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Are there motions? Ostner: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres, I'm sorry. Did you Myres: No. I was just (inaudible). Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 22 Ostner: I'll make a motion to deny the Administrative Item 06-2164. Anthes: We have a motion to deny. Clark: Second. Anthes: And second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? I just have a question. Mr. Pate, I believe that we've had recent similar requests. Can you refresh our memory? Pate: Sure. Within, I believe, the last, at least year, this Planning Commission has seen, to my memory, at least two other requests for reductions in landscape areas. We consider each and every one of these on its own basis, of course, but in answer to your question, I believe there was one on Crossover Road for an expansion of a structure and a reduction of green space, and also one on Highway 45 for a dentist office or eye clinic or something of that nature where there was an existing parking lot that they wanted to expand into the green space. Both of those requests were denied. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to deny ADM 06-2164 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 23 ADM 06-1959: Administrative Item (CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE): Submitted by Planning Staff and the Urban Forester, proposing amendments to the Unified Development Code to consolidate landscaping requirements into a new Chapter 177 and revise associated chapters accordingly. Anthes: Our final item this evening is Administrative Item 06-1959, the Consolidated Landscape Ordinance. Can we have the staff report, please? Pate: Yes, ma'am. The Planning Staff and Urban Forester are recommending that the Planning Commission forward to the Ordinance Review Committee first and then ultimately to the City Council proposed ordinance amendments to unify development code to adopt a brand new chapter in our Unified Development Code, Chapter 177, Landscape Regulations. As I've stated before at the agenda session and discussions with the Planning Commission previously, an approximate, I would say, 85 percent of this ordinance is to consolidate existing landscape requirements from other portions of our Unified Development Code. As the City of Fayetteville has grown and developed and adopted new ordinances, most oftentimes they are in direct reflection or reaction to a certain item or issue. Parking lot landscaping requirements, for instance, were adopted and they're in the parking and loading chapter; we have commercial design standards that have certain landscape requirements; we have the Design Overlay District with certain landscape requirements, and those are all typically associated with that particular issue. What this does is ... Anthes: Mr. Pate, can I interrupt you for a minute? Could you close that back door? Thanks. We'll be able to hear you better. Pate: Sure. What this sometimes does is makes it very difficult both for staff and for an applicant who is trying to develop a piece of property to find the right code that's applicable to them. Even my staff, especially training new staff and trying to advise someone, it's hard oftentimes to find the exact section in the five chapters that the current ordinance currently is in. So as I mentioned, 85 percent of this ordinance amendment is to consolidate those into one chapter and cross reference them so that, where they used to be, now they'll have a cross reference back to this brand-new chapter. That's what you see before you in Chapter 177 ... and I passed that section out separately ... both Chapter 177 and all of the other Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 24 ordinances that would be amended. Most of those that you see there, which includes Chapter 151, Definitions; Chapter 152, Administration; Chapter 156, Variances; Chapter 166, Development; and Chapter 172, Parking and Loading, a majority of those are just strikethroughs, so it's simply taking that information and relocating it to the new Chapter 177, albeit, they are newly organized and hopefully read better. We hope that's ... that's the point at least. Chapter 177, as I mentioned, goes through several different requirements, and I'll reference some of those to you. The other 15 percent of this ordinance amendment is to establish new requirements. Part of those are for street tree planting. We do have street tree planting programs. We have established mitigation, escrow accounts for tree mitigation, and that is something that our Urban Forester does work through on a daily basis. So we have established under Chapter 177, Subsection 05, Street Tree Planting Standards. One new requirement would be, for instance, a residential subdivision would be required to plant one tree per lot. We feel that that's something that's important to provide an urban canopy in our residential areas. Additionally, there are new requirements for landscaping our storm water facilities, meaning primarily detention ponds. That's the number one storm water facility that has developed currently, especially with subdivisions and large scale developments. I think to note that those trees and shrubs and things of that ... the trees that are planted within those areas ... would be counted as mitigation trees, so you would be able to essentially double count those if you have mitigation on a property. Currently, a lot of times those are located within the detention area anyway, so this would not change that practice that developers are typically going through at this time. That also dovetails with our storm water ordinance, Chapter 177.06 and Chapter 177.07, Landscaping for Erosion Control. We did meet with our storm water engineer and go over both of these subsections to ensure that we were not creating and proposing something that was in conflict with those chapters. I would like to mention briefly a couple of things. One, I would like to thank publicly the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee for helping out with this. They had a lot to do with this ordinance amendment. This was actually begun several years ago with Craig Camagey, who was the landscape administrator at the time, and there have been two since then, and ... the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee, and we have now ... we are now here. I'd also like to thank Sarah Patterson. I think she's going to give us a presentation, too, because you also have a landscape manual that is attached to this, and we've worked very closely in both the manual and the ordinance. Sarah Patterson is our Urban Forester, as you know. Two things I'd like to mention, that there is a memo in your packet about a § 166 (B), Applicability, to remove that section reference in the City attorney's memo. I would like to ask the Planning Commission to remove that. This ordinance is more about Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 25 landscaping and that section was inadvertently placed in there, so if you would, please remove that. We also ... 1 also passed out earlier a few things that we received in the last few days and other comments. One is a letter from the Arkansas State Board of Landscape Architects discussing one new requirement, which is a proposal to require the seal of a landscape architect that's registered with the State of Arkansas on the plans that are submitted for Large Scale Development or approved for Large Scale Development and Subdivisions. That's under a new subsection in your Chapter 177. There's also a letter. That letter is from William Hall, Chairman of the Arkansas State Board of Landscape Architects. We also have a letter from Frances Beatty, who is the president of the Arkansas chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects, and I believe Ms. Beatty is here as well, and there's also an e- mail from Mark Boyer, who is a professor at the School of Architecture, landscape architecture department. He provided a ... sort of an itemized list of things that he would suggest be either changed or edited. All of those ... the majority of those are either typos or things that I think could easily be changed and I would hope that the Planning Commission would allow me to change those things in the new draft that is proposed for the Ordinance Review Committee, at least the minor revisions. There are some that would take quite a bit more work and I don't think we're ready to tackle all of those yet, particularly the bioswells and how they function, but I believe a lot of the others are certainly valid points and I would be happy to make those changes if it so pleases the Planning Commission, and with that I would like if Sarah Patterson could come up and explain some the landscape manual that you also have in front of you. Patterson: Good evening. I'm Sarah Patterson, for you that don't know me. As Jeremy mentioned, what we kind of did in conjunction with this consolidated code is I revised the City of Fayetteville's landscape manual. It says in Chapter 167 that this is kind of our best management practices manual, similar to the Hillside. It says in Chapter 167 that this will be revised every ... at least every three years to keep up with arboricultural practices. So kind of what we've done ... and we're sending this through at the same time with the landscape manual since there is some additions. I think a majority of what you're looking at, unfortunately, I can't take credit for. It was written previous to me coming on with the City. What happened, I believe Craig Camagey, he was the last to revise this, but he kind of minimized this down to a smaller scale, less pages. I have, in fact, increased it, so it's over 100 pages, and I apologize, but I think the original intent of this manual was not just for developers to get and figure out what they need to do. I think that it is supposed to be an educational manual for our citizens as well. So really the first chapter has been cut and recently ... recently cut, and what I've done is put it back in. It talks about what an Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 26 urban forest is and how a tree works, and tree myths, which are, you know, "Why don't you top your tree?" and things like that, that I think are really important for the average person to know, and, you know, maybe a developer or someone else will read it and learn something. That's what I hope. As for the tree preservation information, really most of it has stayed the same. I have updated it to refer to our Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District now, but that's really in minimal places, talking about abbreviated tree preservation plans that are now required for building permits within those areas. I'd say definitely the bulk of the revisions have come with the landscape requirement, Chapter 4. In most cases it stayed the same, but I have added a whole page on urban tree wells, which is our tree pits that we plant in our sidewalks, a diagram of what it should be, specifications of what we're expecting, must have structural soil, the type of grate that you can put over the top. I just think, you know, we needed that in there especially to go in coordination with that. I also added storm water facilities. To kind of describe what that is, a little bit of a checklist to help people out through that. In the installation and maintenance section, really most of it stayed the same. I added a few other things ... more educational, really ... about mulching and fertilizing and staking and tree wrap. One of the biggest things that really needed to be updated was the appendix in the back, and I hope that it's user friendly, that's what I hope, if for nothing else. We've added mitigation and landscaping trees. It's just an updated version of what we had, but plants change. A new list that we've added is Shrubs of Arkansas. We haven't recently had any kind of list for people to look at for the shrubs that are required. And parking lot ... trees within parking lots, that's kind of a separate list as well. So I think that pretty much sums up the differences. In mine I have included a definition section in the back and just different things like that, but in general it's the same. 1, unfortunately, didn't write much. I just stuck back in what I thought needed to be there. So if you have any questions in particular about that, I would be happy to answer them. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Patterson. Before we ask for public comment, Mr. Pate, I have a couple of questions. There was a statement made that the draft amendments were placed on the City's website. How long have they been posted, and has there been any comment as a result? Pate: I haven't received any e-mails, although the draft was placed on the website last week, I believe, when we finally got this draft out to the Planning Commission. I believe that was a week ago Monday, and so once we got that draft out we put it out on the website for anyone to ... anyone to look at. I haven't personally gotten any comments other than the ones that you see in front of you. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 27 Anthes: And my second question is: are we actually voting to forward both the ordinance revisions and the landscape manual, or is the landscape manual an administrative change and just here for our information? Pate: It's the latter. It's only the ordinance revisions. We just wanted to include those ... the landscape manual to let you know how we approached this, much like the Hillside Overlay District, where we have the Best Management Practice Manual, and that will be updated as well. Anthes: So we don't adopt that as a policy document prior to the ordinance like we do with city plan or downtown master plan? Pate: That's correct. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this item, the Administrative Item for the Consolidated Landscape Ordinance? Please come forward, state your name, and your comments. Beatty: I'm Fran Beatty, a resident in the City of Fayetteville, and I'm here before you today representing the Arkansas Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. First, I want to commend staff and all the hard work that it takes to consolidate and organize things. And in particular, I want to applaud the addition of plantings for storm water facilities, street tree programs, erosion control. If we truly want to be a beautiful city, clean and green, then I think being very assertive and clear about expectations is important. I also appreciate the preamble of these regulations about preservation, the public health, safety and welfare, and I think your regulations are doing that, being clear about how specific new developments can foster that particular aspect, and requiring a licensed professional is playing in helping ensure not only the public/health/safety/ welfare, but also the other objective of these regulations about preserving and enhancing the beauty of the City of Fayetteville. So just to close, really, just to reiterate that quality of life is always a very elusive and difficult thing to define, and I think you've gone a long way to actually do that in these regulations, so thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Beatty. Ms. Hesse. Hesse: I'm Kim Hesse. I come tonight to speak to you in favor of this ordinance and I do so in kind of three different viewpoints: one as a registered landscape architect, one as a former staff member of the City of Fayetteville, and one as a developer, so like I said, three very different viewpoints. I do want to applaud the staff and the Tree and Landscape Committee. The consolidation of the ordinances are obvious and certainly Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 28 many of the improvements, their additions for storm water, erosion control and street tree planting, will help, basically, follow the goals and the visions that the City of Fayetteville has set up for growth. I think any time you revise an ordinance or add to your ordinances, they must follow those goals and those visions, and that is something that's definitely done with these changes. As a registered landscape architect we are trained to not just look at the plants or choose which plants look best in a certain location. We are trained to look at the entire site and the impacts that site will have, not only on the structure or the developers, but for the users, for the residents that are going to use that space, whether they live there or they work there or they shop there. And I think there's a lot to be said to that overall viewpoint, and when you design a parking lot or determine what plants to put in a detention pond, as a landscape architect we're trained to be thinking of many different aspects. And I think that's one of the benefits of requiring that stamp, is you're not going to have someone just looking at the plants, you're not going to have someone just looking at the drainage. You're going to have somebody looking at that, looking at the overall spaces, the uses, and what's going to be created by those outdoor spaces. It's an improvement of our livability is what are goals are. I think as a former staff member I used to review these landscape plans. The urban forester landscape administrator will be doing that, as far as I understand. That's a lot of work. You've got so many ... several other things that you do in your workday and I really appreciated when I got a plan that was cohesive that I knew was reviewed by a landscape architect. Typically they had better planting details as specifications for the landscape, whether it be the planting or maybe a retaining wall. Some of the hard-scapes were done very well. I felt confident that, like I say, the installation would be done better. And more often when you have a professional stamping those plans, they're more often out there inspecting the installation, so you have a better chance at long-term livability and the maintenance is being upheld. As a developer it's a little bit harder for me to stand up here and speak in favor of this ordinance, quite honestly. The opposition will be, it's going to spend ... it's going to cost me more money to develop a large scale development. I'm going to have to put more money into my detention plan or my detention facilities, storm water facilities, and that is all true. There's always going to be the concern that I have to hire another professional. I've got to hire a landscape architect. More and more you can hardly develop a piece of property now without hiring a professional. You have to hire an engineer to do your drainage and grading. You hire an architect to do your building. More and more architects and engineers now hire landscape architects. It's not necessarily going to mean you're going to spend more money. You're going to have a better product. You may spend more money, but the result is, again, you're going to have a better product, and as a developer I see the value in Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 29 that. I don't have to spend as much time watching over my consultants when I know I've chosen the right ones. When you speak specifically of the detention storm water facility requirements, they do add quite a bit, but if I look at the long-term effects, one, the maintenance is going to be much reduced in the long term and also it's going to improve that product. I'm out there trying to sell these lots. I don't just put them in and then walk away. We've got to sell those lots, we build those houses, and we sell those houses. This is going to help improve my product. It's going to help market my subdivision or my large scale development. And, although, up front we may not see that, but in the long term I think the benefits will be realized. And I also think that for your citizens, there's lots of requirements out there that our citizens don't appreciate. You drive by and you see a detention pond and they go, "Why do we have that hole in the ground out there? It's dry all the time. It's supposed to be a pond, but it's never got water in it," you know, and there's requirements for the capacity of that storm water facility and the outflow structures, and, you know, everything is designed just so. Well, a resident driving by doesn't see the value in that, but if he sees trees, wild flowers, shrubs growing in that detention pond, suddenly when he drives by it's not just an empty pond, it's a landscape feature, and I think they're going to appreciate that. Thank you. Anthes: Ms. Evans. Evans: Hi. I'm Melissa Evans with EB Landworks here in Fayetteville. I'm a landscape architect and I certainly support the changes to the landscape ordinance. I think it's good for the City overall. I think it gives us a more user-friendly code. Everything is consolidated, which is very nice. And also, I'm glad that it takes into account street trees and detention pond plantings. I think it's a good idea to have a landscape architect seal the landscape plans. Obviously I'm a little biased that way, but I think it's very hard to define ... or it's difficult to regulate or prove the knowledge of a designer, so I think it's important to have a licensed professional in these cases where we're looking out for the public health, safety and welfare. And I'd also like to thank City staff for their hard work on this. Thank you. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, we will close the floor to public comment, and we've already had the applicant presentation, from staff. So, Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. We're being asked to forward this to Ordinance Review; is that correct? Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 30 Anthes: That's correct ... and Council. Clark: I think this document is a great improvement and there are a lot of people that deserve the credit, starting back even before Sarah and ... I can't remember... Craig. I know that my involvement with City started on the Tree and Landscape committee with Kim, and Melissa, as a matter of fact, putting ... working on one of the first ordinances, and I know that committee has worked very, very hard. I am very pleased to see the detention pond get ... detention ponds get a little more attention, because I think we came up with them as a really good idea for water diversion, but now they're just kind of sitting there and now this gives it much more flesh and much more potential. I also think adding the landscape architect is a wonderful addition and will give developments another tool to be all they can be. Even though it might be a bit more expensive in the development scheme, I think you make up for that on the end product. I think it's going to make our town greener, more hospitable to an urban canopy that we need to be proud of, and need to continue to keep an eye on and cultivate. So I will be more than happy to recommend that we forward Administrative Item ... wherever the heck it is ... there it is ... Administrative Item 06-1959 to Ordinance Review with a positive recommendation. Myres: And I'll second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by Commissioner Myres to forward to Ordinance Review and City Council. Is there further discussion? Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Mr. Pate. Pate: If I may, that will include the removal of the section in Chapter 166 ( B ) under "Applicability for Commercial Design Standards," and also if that will allow staff to make those minor changes as referenced in this e-mail before Ordinance Review Committee? Clark: I thought I made that in my motion, but I will gladly add it, yes. Pate: Thank you. Anthes: Commissioner Ostner. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 31 Ostner: Madame Chair. I do have a few questions for staff. I guess our packet isn't numbered. That's unfortunate. At the end ... well, 166.14, that's not what you're removing? Okay. 166 ( B )? Pate: Yes, that's correct. Ostner: Okay. Pate: Just removing the highlighted section that was ... was added, which states ... if I can get to it... under "Applicability," it's the highlighted section that says "when commercial office and institutional uses are planned." That's all new language and it was unintended to be in this draft for the Landscape Ordinance Review. Ostner: That did have something to do with my question. So on 166 ( B), down ... all the way down to 10, my question to staff is that if a PZD when commercial office, institutional and industrial uses are planned, to what percentage? I mean, if there's a PZD, a residential PZD with 49 percent commercial, the way I read it, that that this wouldn't apply. Pate: These are just for commercial design standards. This really has nothing to do with the landscape ordinance. So this is the existing language that's currently in the ... Ostner: Okay. So when you say that ... that gray part, then we're not dealing with that at all? Pate: Correct. Ostner: Okay. Okay. I did not understand that part. All right. My next question would be on down ... boy, this is tough without page numbers ... upper case D , Buffer Strips and Screening, 1, 2, 3. We're adding this number 3? I'm not off track? This is something we're currently ... Pate: Actually, in the existing code, that ... Ostner: Does this go all the way back? Pate: This language was in the existing code as well. It was brought over from another section and combined all under this "Buffer Strips and Screening." A lot of this is ... was in one very long paragraph. Ostner: Okay. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 32 Pate: So what I did was separate this out into three different sections: landscape area, fence area, ... Ostner: Okay. I understand. Pate: ... no screen required. Ostner: It's just being moved? Pate: Correct. Ostner: Okay. Well, I still have a question about it. It seems like " vegetation shall be planted at a density sufficient to become view obscuring ... view obscuring within two years from the day of planting," it seems like the point of that is to be view obscuring. My question is, what if I chop it down to 6 inches? And, I mean, that's just a question for staff. How does work? Is there any mechanism? It was planted and went through our processes as a screen ... Pate: Right. Ostner: ... and suddenly it's not. Is there any mechanism in place? Pate: There is, actually, under 177. 1 can't quote the section right now, but, for instance, if you lose a landscape tree that was required as part of a large scale development, upon notice of complaint or ... or notice by Code Compliance whereby the Planning Division ... there is a section already that's in our code currently that states we notify the property owner and give them a certain amount of time to actually replant that tree. So I would assume it would fall under the same section that was required by the Planning Commission to meet our ordinance requirements if it's removed or the landscape dies ... the landscape plantings die and then they would have to be replaced. Ostner: I'm actually talking about taking a ... taking this view -obscuring screen, a row of bushes, and trimming it down to nothing. It's still alive, it's still there, but everyone knows it's not view obscuring. Williams: Does it not still include the clause of "sufficient height to prevent the view"? That's what it currently has in there. Clark (?): Below it. Ostner: Okay. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 33 Pate: Right. Ostner: So Williams: So that would be a violation of the ordinance. If they cut it down it would not be of sufficient height to prevent the view or the screened items from vehicular/pedestrian traffic on adjacent streets. Ostner: Okay. So it would operate the same? Pate: Correct. Ostner: Someone would complain, we'd come look, it's not doing its job as a screen ... Pate: Right. Ostner: ... and we would ... Pate: It would be in violation of the ordinance. Ostner: (inaudible) Okay. Just wanted to know that. All right. On ... now this page is numbered, CD 172. 4 . That's the page number. I'm a big believer, by the way, that this is a big teaching document. The dimension on the stall width is not there. It's just a detail, but all the other dimensions are drawn in. That would be very helpful as a teaching aid if it were drawn in like all the others. Do you see where I mean, Jeremy? Pate: Yes. Ostner: Thank you. All right. I greatly appreciate and I'm in full support of the stamp of the landscape architect. I think that's been defended thoroughly. I'm not going to go into that, but I'm behind that. All right. On CD 177.6, and that's the page number ... this is still for staff ... on the replacement landscaping, the lower case "c " sort of the upper left, second paragraph. Pate: That's actually the section I was referencing earlier. Ostner: Okay. Good. So my question then is, is this in place ... this is a permanent situation? This replacement landscaping clause is always in effect? Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 34 Pate: When those are ... those are projects that ... come through our development process and there is required landscaping. If it's just landscaping you've planted on your own for the beautification of your property, ... Ostner: Well, of course. Pate: ... then we would not enforce that. Ostner: Okay. I guess what I'm talking about, "Landscaping that dies or is damaged shall be removed and replaced. Owner shall have 60 days from the receipt of written notice." So if you've come through with a large scale development and you've got these rules, you had to comply, do you have to remove and replace once, or you've always got to have a tree there? Pate: It's ... it's a good question. I would assume that ... Ostner: I mean, there are developments that we approved less than two years ago that have dead trees, and I'm not going to complain and try to get them replaced, but I've often wondered if they're simply waiting for their two- year bond, then they'll replace everything and whatever dies after that they'll just remove. Pate: We don't ... there's not a time frame on that. So there's no landscape bond, for instance, that one has to put up for landscape trees. You do have to do that for mitigation trees, and we are proposing that an applicant or developer do that for street tree planting so that, for instance, if those ... that developer sells those properties and is gone, but they have a bond up for, I believe, three years, so that if the City had to come in and replace those because they were dead and the developer, again, is long gone, we could do that. We would have the means to do that. Ostner: Okay. Pate: It's not something we've done with large scale developments in the past, so there's no bond or time frame on that. So I guess ... I guess taking it out to the letter of the law, yes, it would be, if the tree was required, it's required to be there in perpetuity. Ostner: Okay. Okay. That answers my question. Here again on that same page, if you're going to use this as a teaching tool, you need dimensions on your .... under Option I of Narrow Tree Lawn. I know it's called out in text, but it needs to be called out in graphic, too. Under Option 2 it would be helpful there. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 3 5 Pate: Okay. Ostner: On the next page, CD 177.7, I'm not finding anywhere in this document that aspect or utilized shade has been addressed. Is that ... Pate: It wouldn't be part of... Ostner: I'm not following it, but Pate: It wouldn't be part of our ordinance requirement. It's not something we have typically regulated per our ordinances. I'm not sure if the landscape manual addresses it at all or not, but it does encourage certain plantings in certain areas to be a benefit for both the property owner for utility, in conservation of utilities, and for the heat island effect. So those are both things that we do encourage in the manual and it ... to us, it's more of a tool for encouragement as opposed to a required planting on the west side of the building and south side of the building, as opposed to regulating that. It's more of an encouraging and hopefully letting the developer know through this landscape manual, which hopefully, again, is user friendly, to understand that it will be an overall long-term cost savings. Ostner: I understand that, but there are lots of sections in our ordinance that are shoulds instead of shalls, and I understand we have a manual that accompanies this, but if the idea of aspect and planting trees that attempt to achieve shade for parked cars, benches, pedestrian walkways, et cetera, by utilizing aspect in locating the trees along the southern and western edges of the aforementioned areas were actually in the ordinance even with a "should" instead of a "shall," I think it would be very helpful. I think it would be clear that planting trees is not just for decoration, it's for use. My child burned his arm on a seatbelt and the car had been sitting there about an hour, and I just looked around and saw all these trees and they were shading the street and they could have been shading cars. If you look around any parking lot, people park under the trees first. I think that would be a helpful part of this code, even if it's just a "shall" instead of a "should," so that people could move their trees around in those positions. On that same page, I have a question for our Urban Forester, if she's following along. Patterson: I am (speaking from the audience). Ostner: Okay. On CD 177.7, at the bottom left, Number 3, Tree Planting, it talks about "Large species trees shall be planted in the required 15 -foot landscape area. Trees along the perimeter may be grouped to allow Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 36 flexibility and design." I'm curious as to the spacing of these trees in groups, if you have ... if you have a say in people planting trees too close to each other for the species. Patterson: I commonly request trees ... I mean, I feel like I can only request that on trees that are required by our ordinance, but I typically stick with the 30 - foot minimum spacing. If it was a case where they were using some other type of tree columnar or they're trying to get a thick screen, other purposes like that, we do look at going closer, but ... especially with a screening. Sometimes we do, you know, 15 feet staggered or something, but I think that I do have ultimate ... a bit of control over that. I mean, it is my approval of their plan, so ... Ostner: Okay. Good. Thank you. I was wanting to not have trees planted too close together. Patterson: I try not to. Ostner: They don't work well. Patterson: No. Ostner: All right. I bad another height issue, and that's been dealt with. Well, I would ... I would like to offer an amendment at the section ... good night ... I believe it's 177.04 ... geez, how do I read this thing ... C, capital C ... no. Clark: It should have been ... Ostner: No. I checked that. Clark: Capital D. Ostner: Capital D, Perimeter Landscaping Requirement, Number 2, lower case ... lower case 'e.' So that would slip in on Page CD 177.7 on the right, and it would read, "Tree planting locations shall attempt to achieve shade for parked cars, benches, pedestrian walkways, etcetera, by utilizing aspect in locating the trees along the southern and western areas of these ... the southern and western parts of these areas." Anthes: Is that a motion, Commissioner Ostner? Ostner: It was a friendly amendment to the motion that has already been put on ... Anthes: You might just want to make a motion to amend. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 37 Ostner: Well, yes. Yes, thank you. Motion to amend the motion to approve. Anthes: Can you read your amendment again? Ostner: "All tree planting locations shall attempt to achieve shade for parked cars, benches, pedestrian walkways, et cetera, by utilizing aspect in locating the trees along the southern or western parts of these areas." Anthes: I have a question. If you say "by utilizing aspect," do you actually need to call out the southern and western part? Ostner: Well, I'm trying to be redundant. Anthes: Okay. Ostner: You can throw out "aspect" if you want. Pate: We will likely include a definition of "aspect" in our glossary if we forward this on. Anthes: Okay. A motion to amend. Do I hear a second? Myres: I'll second. Anthes: Motion to amend by Commissioner Ostner, a second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to amend ADM 06-1959 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Anthes: Do you have further comments? Ostner: Thank you. Not at this time. Thank you for the floor. Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Ostner. Would anyone else like to address this item? I have a couple of questions. I have a comment about the landscape manual. I appreciate, Ms. Patterson, that you added those chapters back in. I think the information is really useful and helpful and, in fact, is something that I am going to pass on to the University of Arkansas. I do have a request that on the first page. It says, "Prepared by" and it gives the staff and the administrative people that were part of that preparation. I would also like to see that you note when revisions and amendments were made and who was on staff at that point, because I think that to give credit to everybody that's worked on it is appropriate. As far as the ordinances Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 3 8 go, I have a question of staff. On the first page of Exhibit A it's talking about commercial design standards. I wanted to verify, once again, that landscape still does not mitigate for commercial design standards for building and we're not attempting to change that here. Is that correct? Pate: That's correct. We're not ... we're not changing that at all. Anthes: Second, is on the third page of Exhibit A, and it's on the trash enclosure section. "Trash enclosures shall be screened with materials that are compatible with and complimentary to the principle structure with access not visible from the street." Is access considered the gates? Pate: Access ... well, if they are gated. They're not required to be gated at all times. So if ... that is one mitigating thing you can utilize is gates, obviously, and if not ... if it's not gated then that access to the actual dumpster and the trash therein would have to be hidden from view. Anthes: That's something I've always been a little confused about. So if they're un -gated it can't be viewed and if they're gated, it ... Pate: The gate could be ... Anthes: ... it assists when you have a placement that's difficult ... Pate: Right. Anthes: ... with relationship to the street? Pate: Exactly. Anthes: My other questions were covered in the discussion. Is there further discussion? We have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark, with a second by Commissioner Myres. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward ADM 06-1959 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 39 Anthes: Are there any announcements? Clark: I have a question. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Sarah, will we get a new copy of the landscape manual when it's approved? Patterson: Yes. Clark: Because it is a very useful educational tool. Anthes: I have a request. We got our new postcards today with our meeting times on them. Can you ask that whoever prepares those add the subdivision team numbers to those postcards? Pate: Sure. Anthes: And also, were there subdivision packets available? Pate: There's actually another break, so there's not a Subdivision Committee this week. Myres: No. It's not until the 3rd. Anthes: Oh, it's on the 3rd? Okay. Pate: We'll add that and get the revisement to you. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. I guess that's it. We're adjourned. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. on 7-24-06.) Planning Commission July 24, 2006 Page 40