Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout166-05 RESOLUTION• • s/� City Council Meeting of August 16, 2005 Agenda Item Numbtr h5p sob 4.5q-57 / CITY COUNCIL, AGENDA MEMO 05-x3 To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operatic in Thru: From: Jeremy C. Pale, Director of Current Planning Date: July 28, 2005 Subject: Tree Preservation Ordinance variance for Nelson's Crossing (ADM 05-1663) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommutds approval of a variance from the Tree Preservation ordinance section 167.04 Trcc Preservation and Protection During Development, Section D: Prior Tree Removal. Staff finds that a strict application of the ordinance requirements in this case would work an injustice as applied to the proposed development, and said variance would not nullify the intent and purpose of the chapter, with the proposed Irce plantings on the property. BACKGROUND Property: A Large Scale Development was recently approved by the Planning Commission on the site of the fomur Ramada Inn at Joyce Boulevard and Shiloh Drive, allowing for the construction of 57,900 square foot commercial/retail/ restaurant development with associated landscaping and parking on 4.94 acres (Nelson's Crossing). Prior to submitting a large scale development, the developer contracted with a demolition crew and obtained the necessary permits to begin demolition of the hotel. As part of this demolition, the contractor removed trees on the site, consisting of several Bradford Pear trees and an 18" sweetgum tree. This prior tree removal was not approved by the city, thus falls under a penalty in the Tree Preservation ordinance that requires a minimum of 10% of the total lot area to he replanted at the time of development. For the removal of the 3-4 trees prior to approval by the city, the developer would be required, with the strict application of this ordinance, to replant a total of 109 trees on the property. With prior approval granted, only 13 trees would he required to be replanted, based on the size, canopy arca and priority of the trees being removed. Staff and talc Planning Commission (bund that a strict application of this ordinance in this situation clots not meet the intent or purpose, of the ordinance and warrants a variance by the City Council. However, staff also finds that a disincentive to remove trees without prior approval must remain in place, as this is the intent of the prior removal penalty. Staff recommends in favor of granting a variance from the strict application of this ordinance, instead recommending that 25 additional trees over the amount required (13) he planted, resulting in a total of 38 trees. The Planning Commission recommended 5 trees he planted on-site, with 20 to be planted off-site. Request: The request is for a variance from the strict application of the Tree Preservation ordinance, which is attached for review. A total of 38 2 -inch caliper mitigation Trees are • • City Council Meeting of August 16, 2005 Agenda Item Number required to be planted (exclusive of the trees required for the city's landscaping ordinances) with the variance approval. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission considered this variance request as part of the large scale development LSD 05-1593 (Nelson's Crossing) on July 25, 2005, on which they voted 8- 0-0 in favor of the recommended variance as it relates to the project. The official recommendation from the Planning Commission was for 25 additional mitigation trees, with five to be planted on-site and twenty to be planted in off-site locations. BUDGET IMPACT None • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM 0-1. 167 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION IN THE MANNER RECOMMENDED 13Y THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LSD) 05- 1593. W11EREAS, with the demolition of the former Ramada Inn several Trees were removed prior to approval of the large scale development plans and the developer is thus required to be penalized WHEREAS, the penalty of replanting 109 trees to replace (he three to lour removed, by ordinance, would work an injustice as applied to the proposed development due to the nature of the tree removal and penalty imposed therefore WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes both the intent of the ordinance penalty for prior tree removal and that a tair,penalty should he imposed to provide disincentive for prior removal BE 1T RESOLVED BY TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: <:.qq,t. Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves the herein above mentioned variance. '7 Section 2. Th�the developer shall bk�required to plant a total of thirty-eight (38) two-inch caliper larg-pecies mitigation trees to mitigate for the removed canopy and as penalty for prior removal.withoutapproval. PASSED'aiid APPROVED this day of August, 2005. ATTEST: By: 13y: APPROVED: DAN GOODY, MAYOR SONDRA SMITH, CITY CLERK • • CHAPTER 167: TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION 167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development (D) Prior tree removal. (1) If trees have been removed below the required minimum within the five (5) years preceding application for development approval, the site must be forested to meet the Percent Minimum Canopy requirements set forth in Table 1, plus an additional ten percent (10%) of the total area of the property for which the Applicant is seeking approval, less the right-of-way and park land dedications. The number of trees required to be planted shall be calculated using the Base Density for High Priority trees. (2) Waiver. If an applicant is able to demonstrate to the Planning Commission's satisfaction that the trees were removed for a bona fide agricultural purpose, and not with the intent to thwart enforcement of this chapter, the additional 10% reforestation requirement shall be waived. CHAPTER 156: VARIANCES 5) Tree preservation plan. A developer may petition the Planning Commission for a variance from the requirements of Chapter 167, Tree Preservation and Protection, in those cases where their strict application would work an injustice as applied to the proposed development due to a situation unique to the subject real property; provided that such variance shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the chapter. The Planning Commission's approval of said variance must be affirmed by the City Council to become effective, and a denial of the requested variance may be appealed to the City Council. • a e evi le Y ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PC Meeting of July 25, 2005 TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT To: Fayetteville Planning Commission From: Jeremy Pate, Landscape Administrator Date: July 20, 2005 125 W. Mountain Si. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone. (479) 575-8267 ITEM #: LSD 05-1593 (Nelson's Crossing) With demolition of the hotel formerly on this site, the applicant's representative indicated that the one tree that was worthy of preserving (an 18" sweet gum) was removed. The developer of this property has removed trees below the required minimum preceding approval of a Tree Preservation Plan, which is a violation of Ch. 167.04, Tree Preservation and Protection During Development. Fayetteville's city code addresses the prior removal of trees, requiring a developer to reforest the site to meet the percent minimum canopy requirements, plus an additional ten percent (10%) of the total area of the property for which the applicant is seeking approval, less right-of-way. The number of trees to he planted shall be calculated using the Base Density for Iligh Priority Trees. There is no option to pay money -in -lieu. Requirements Submitted: Initial Review with the Landscape Administrator ✓ Site Analysis Map Submitted ✓ Site Analysis Written Report Submitted Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted K: (Urban Forester&'RUJEC7SVSU.2005Welson , Xing)7rerl'resrrvationReport - PC.. dor Canopy Measurements: Tall Mr? G acres s 1 uarc feet 4t!tISDr S acres square feet 4.792 208,739 0.13 ercent of site arca acres 5,550 square feet 2.7% 0 0 ercent of total site arca [th:ate 6Yti rim COnitmg 0% 2.7%* * Reforestation flan additional 10% of the total area of the property in question is added due to. the prior retnoval of trees without permission. - 2.7% at Low Priority: 13 trees - 10% penalty at Iligh Priority': 96 trees (adding 10% of existing arca) 4.792 acres = 208,739 SF x 1 0% -= 20,874 SF / 218 (high priority density factor) = 96 trees TOTAL MITIGATION TREES: 109 2 -inch caliper trees 167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development (D) Prior tree removal. (1) If trees have hecn removed below the required minimum within the five (5) years preceding application for development approval, the site must he forested to meet the Percent Minimum Canopy requirements set forth in Table 1, plus an additional ten percent (10%) of the total arca of the property for which the Applicant is seeking approval, less the right-of-way and park land dedications. The number of trees required to be planted shall he calculated using the Base Density for I ligh Priority trees. (2) Waiver. If an applicant is ahlc to demonstrate to the Planning Commission's satisfaction that the trees were removed for a bona fide agricultural purpose, and not with the intent to thwart enforcement of this chapter, the additional 10% reforestation requirement shall be waived. FINDINGS: The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species. • The canopy existing on this site is primarily 12-18" landscape trees planted with the development of this property in the past. Many are not desirable species, with the exception of the 18" sweet gum that was removed. The significant alterations to this site would endanger the survivability of many of these trees. Initial efforts were indicated to protect the 18" sweet gum located in front of the proposed building, however the developer removed this tree prior to approval, which constitutes a violation of city ordinance. K:IUrban Fore:tern! ROJLC 7SLSD-2005tNefson's XinglTreePresenntionReport - PCAoc • •. iVhether the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities. • The submittal does incorporate the required priorities, though all trees are proposed for removal. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of the tree or group of trees. • Environmental degradation will not occur as a result of the removal of these trees. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located. • Adjacent properties will not he impacted by removal of trees on this property. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of development on existing trees. • No alternative construction methods are proposed. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design. • The size and shape of the lot docs not inhibit the flexibility of design. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees. or the presence of any disease, injury or hazard. • The general health of all groups of trees on this site is fair. The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the property. • The tree size, location and species on this site do not lend themselves to preservation, thus placing structures, utilities, etc. did not respect the location of this canopy. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing. repairing, replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities. • N/A Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy. • The tree size, location and species on this site do not lend themselves to preservation, thus placing structures, utilities, etc. did not respect the location of this canopy. Construction requirements for On -Site and Off Site Alternatives. • N/A The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives. • On-site mitigation, and the 10% additional canopy, along with the required landscaping for the site, will greatly enhance the canopy coverage on this property with appropriate species selected. K.tt/rban Forester)'ROJF,CI.lILSj).10051Netson.s XingtTreePresenationRepart - PCdot The effect other chapters of the UDC. and departmental regulations have on the development design. • N/A The extent to which development of the .site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by state and federal regulations: • N/A The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the Applicant: • Staff is recommending approval of the submitted Tree Preservation Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the submitted Tree Preservation Plan associated with LSD 05-1593 with the following conditions: 1. The developer shall be required to plant mitigation trees on this site to meet the percent minimum canopy requirements. The site must also he forested with an additional ten percent (10%) of the total area of the property for which the applicant is seeking approval, less the right-of-way dedication. The number of trees required to be planted shall be calculated using the Base Density for High Priority Trees (218). The total number of trees to be planted on the property, in addition to landscaping requirements, shall be 109 2 -inch caliper trees. Staff has identified several areas to place these trees without compromising the design proposed, namely within street rights-of-way and along the south boundary of the property. Please coordinate with the Landscape Administrator for approval of the hest location for the required mitigation trees. 2. All mitigation trees shall be planted in accordance with the Unified Development Code. K: (Urban Fores:erlPROJEC.7S11SD.1003Wehson's XinglTreePrncn.ationReport - PC dor t i y • .. fi 1 " r f • • LSDOS-1593,p«, , 41,.[, Overby Pib4\ ®Vreepy NIT/ Master Street Plan 033 Wm, MMY Miner Steed RT — — Cantata sae__ frMwryrLtYKn+ry • • • • IYvorl[<4sbr NELSON'S CROSSING FAYETTEVILLE _— _ •. RO RA IIµW IIIF 3t . RO;_L.. Stir . 1 .fir '+MnF1n w- lfftt. ct j A.�.. r RQ • -6- Ce? q0.: IOG�CNIO;N L. G3 I.•:� W[fCI SIF' J 0..:, q0 RO ;RM. '24 f r";.RriNi..i. R�3e ... , n• e.�.. ti Rse1., Pali OR• asFJ A ' F ° R9N (�}j1t LL` RSfJ r •[ta.Per f. Overview Legend Subject Property LSD061597 Boundary Planning Area y000 . Overlay Oisocl I Oulsido City Master Street Plan Master Street Plan Freeway/E.prossway amino Pnwpal Menai Sam Amor Anenel Ccceao • • • •'intone Cceector 0 0.128.25 0.5 0.75 1 M iles • • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING §167.04 (D) (2) TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE CONCERNING WAIVERS OF THE PENALTY FOR THE REMOVAL OF TREE CANOPY PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That Section §167.04 (D) (2) is hereby repealed and the following is inserted in its stead: §167.04 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION DURING DEVELOPMENT. (D) Prior tree removal. (2) Waiver. If an applicant is able to demonstrate to the Planning Commission's satisfaction that the trees were removed for a bona fide agricultural purpose, or without the intent to thwart enforcement of this chapter, the additional 10% reforestation requirement shall be waived. PASSED and APPROVED this 19th day of August, 2005: .t' re APPROVED: � ATTEST: B}! S'© DRA SM' i H, Q; ty Gl`erk. `.moi By.; AN COODY, ayor • • City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form City Council Agenda Items or Contracts 16 -Aug -05 P City Council Meeting Date Jeremy Pater Planning Operations Submitted By Division Department Action Required: ADM 05-1663: (Nelson Crossing, 174): A variance request from Ch 167 'Free Preservation and Protection of the Unified Development Code fora proposed redevelopment of the Ramada Inn site al Joyce Boulevard and Shiloh Drive $0.00 Cost of this request n/a Account Number n/a Project Number Budgeted Item n/a Category/Protect Budget n/a Funds Used to Date n/a Remaining Balance Budget Adjustment Attached n/a Program Category / Project Name n/a Program / Protect Category Name n/a Fund Name Department Di ector 7.29.o$ City Attorney Date " Zf-er sly 3-J5 Finance and Internal Service Director Date Mayor Date Previous Ordinance or Resolution f n/a Original Contract Date: Original Contract Number: n/a n/a Received in Mayor's Office Comments: • RESOLUTION NO. 166-05 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 167 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION IN THE MANNER RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LSD) 05-1593 WHEREAS, with the demolition of the former Ramada Inn several trees were removed prior to approval of the large scale development plans and the developer is thus required to be penalized; and WHEREAS, the penalty of replanting 109 trees to replace the three to four removed, by ordinance, would work an injustice as applied to the proposed development due to the nature of the tree removal and penalty imposed therefore; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes both the intent of the ordinance penalty for prior tree removal and that a fair penalty should be imposed to provide disincentive for prior removal. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves the herein above mentioned variance. Section 2: That the developer shall be required to plant a total of thirty-eight (38) two-inch caliper large species mitigation trees to mitigate for the removed canopy and as penalty for prior removal without approval. PASSED and APPROVED this 16th day of August, 2005 ATTEST: By: ,uta fffffff G� .4F.. (• •G\ Y 0 • Gp GU• ;A= ;FAY ETT EVILLE• By: '•.,,NCTO14 c? SII DRA SMITH, City Clerk APPROVED: